NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur v. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (07 Aug 2015)

Pleadings allowed to be amended when 'petition ripe for hearing'

MANU/DE/2230/2015

Civil

The Court allowed an amendment of pleadings requiring a determination of jurisdiction by the court. The Court questioned whether the amendment was necessary for the determination of the dispute or if it added a new issue for adjudication. It concluded that there could not be any impediment in the determination of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

Relevant : Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors. MANU/SC/1724/2009 Vidyabai and Ors. vs. Padmalatha and Anr. MANU/SC/8401/2008 Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. MANU/SC/0430/2004

Tags : AMENDING PLEADING   TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved