<?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>1997 (5) TMI 439 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199402</link>
    <description>Admissions in pleadings may be withdrawn or explained through amendment where the request is bona fide and advances substantive justice, but the amendment must not cause unfair prejudice to the other side. Here, the petitioner sought to delete an admitted statement that the agreement had expired, despite having knowledge of the contractual dates when the statement was made. The attempted deletion was viewed as an effort to avoid an adverse position after the respondents had altered their stance in reliance on the earlier admission. The proposed amendment was therefore treated as prejudicial and lacking bona fides, and the application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 439 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199402</link>
      <description>Admissions in pleadings may be withdrawn or explained through amendment where the request is bona fide and advances substantive justice, but the amendment must not cause unfair prejudice to the other side. Here, the petitioner sought to delete an admitted statement that the agreement had expired, despite having knowledge of the contractual dates when the statement was made. The attempted deletion was viewed as an effort to avoid an adverse position after the respondents had altered their stance in reliance on the earlier admission. The proposed amendment was therefore treated as prejudicial and lacking bona fides, and the application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>