https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197530 Amendment of a plaint alleging fraudulent payment by an insurer was treated as arising from the same transaction already pleaded and not as a new or independent cause of action. For limitation purposes, the relevant starting point was the insurer's denial of the claim, not merely the date of loss. The Court also noted that the possibility that a fresh suit on the amended claim might face limitation does not by itself defeat an amendment application, since limitation is only one factor in the discretionary exercise. The amendment was therefore not barred and was permitted. en-us Thu, 15 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:07:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197530 Amendment of a plaint alleging fraudulent payment by an insurer was treated as arising from the same transaction already pleaded and not as a new or independent cause of action. For limitation purposes, the relevant starting point was the insurer's denial of the claim, not merely the date of loss. The Court also noted that the possibility that a fresh suit on the amended claim might face limitation does not by itself defeat an amendment application, since limitation is only one factor in the discretionary exercise. The amendment was therefore not barred and was permitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197530