Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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