TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (1) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranteeing the payment of the installments required to be paid by Melaram under the agreement. Melaram committed default in payment of the installments. A sum of Rs. 38,500/ was due from Melaram to the Government. As the Government was attempting to recover the amount from the surety, namely the appellant, he filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a declaration that the agreement between Melaram and the Government and the surety bond executed by the appellant were illegal and unenforceable The contention was that the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution had not been complied with. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was discharged from suretyship under Sections 135 and 139 of the Indian Contract Act. The Trial Court re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable, as a surety to pay the amount which was due by Melaram. The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1 of 1956 in The Court of the Additional District judge, Dewas, to recover damages sustained by him consequent on alleged wrongful attachment and seizure by the forest authorities. One of the questions raised by the appellant in that suit was that the agreement between Melaram and the Government was in contravention of Article 299 of the Constitution of India as the agreement Was not made by the Divisional Forest Officer, in the name of the Raj Pramukh of the State of Madhya Bharat. The contention was negatived by the Additional District Judge, Dewas and by the High Court on appeal. The High Court hold that the agreement had been ratified by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sary is that the Appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the Appellate stage, the reason why it was not sought in the Trial Court. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But, there is no prohibition against an Appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court. 5. In the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State of Madhya Pradesh. The submission that the subject matters of the two suits were different because the present suit was for a declaration and the other suit was for damages is equally without substance since the issue between the parties was identical in both the suits. The question at issue in both the suits was whether the agreement between Melaram and the Government and the surety bond executed by the plaintiff were not enforceable because of the failure to comply with Article 299 of the Constitution. The ground on which the agreement and the surety bond were sustained in the Bewas suit was that the Raj Pramukh had ratified the same. The fact that the ratification by the Raj Pramuka was not expressly mentioned in the present suit ....