<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (1) TMI 459 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194200</link>
    <description>An amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may be refused where it introduces a new challenge to a registered gift deed and would defeat an accrued limitation-based defence. Leave to amend is generally granted, but a court will decline it when the proposed pleading is not a mere clarification and instead seeks to avoid the legal effect of an already registered instrument. Because the gift deed had been registered long before, operated as notice, and the challenge was not promptly raised after it was specifically pleaded, the opposite party&#039;s accrued right would have been prejudiced. The amendment was therefore correctly refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 459 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194200</link>
      <description>An amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may be refused where it introduces a new challenge to a registered gift deed and would defeat an accrued limitation-based defence. Leave to amend is generally granted, but a court will decline it when the proposed pleading is not a mere clarification and instead seeks to avoid the legal effect of an already registered instrument. Because the gift deed had been registered long before, operated as notice, and the challenge was not promptly raised after it was specifically pleaded, the opposite party&#039;s accrued right would have been prejudiced. The amendment was therefore correctly refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>