Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal VS National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon...
1969 0 Supreme(SC) 144 : The Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267, held that a misdescription of the plaintiff in the title of the suit—such as instituting a suit in the name of a business entity like ''''Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal'''' when the real plaintiff is Manohar Lal, the proprietor—does not render the suit a nullity. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are intended to serve the ends of justice and are not governed by narrow or technical limitations. Misdescription of parties, where the real party is identifiable and the error is not due to mala fide conduct, is a curable defect. The Court allowed amendment to correct such misdescription, even if late, provided it does not cause injustice to the other side. The amendment was deemed to relate back to the original date of institution, and the suit was not barred by limitation. This principle applies to misdescription of the plaintiff in the title, including where a business name is used in place of the real individual, as long as the real party is clearly identifiable and the suit is not by a non-existent person.Checking relevance for Purushottam Umedbhai And Company VS Manilal And Sons...
Checking relevance for Revajeetu Builders & Developers VS Narayanaswamy & Sons...
2009 7 Supreme 333 : In Amulakchand Mewaram & Others v. Babulal Kanalal Taliwala, 12 (1933) 35 Bom. L.R. 569, the Bombay High Court held that a misdescription of existing persons in the title of a suit is a curable defect, and prima facie, there ought to be an amendment because the general rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the court should always allow an amendment where any loss to the opposing party can be compensated for by costs. This principle applies when the suit is not against a non-existent person, but merely involves a misdescription of existing persons, which is considered a procedural defect rather than a jurisdictional nullity.Checking relevance for Kaka Joginder Singh Alias Dharti Pakad VS K. R. Narayanan, Vice-president Of India...
1993 0 Supreme(SC) 580 : The Supreme Court in the case referenced in document 00100030096 held that a misdescription in a nomination paper, such as an incorrect mention of a parliamentary constituency (e.g., Ottapalam (SC) instead of Muvattupuzha), which does not mislead anyone and does not create ambiguity about the candidate''''s identity, constitutes a mere misnomer and is a technical defect of non-substantial nature. The Court applied the test from Davies v. Elsby Brothers, Ltd., stating that a reasonable person reading the document would understand it to mean the correct person, even if the name is slightly wrong. This defect is curable and does not justify rejection of the nomination paper under Section 5-E(3)(e) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. The Court emphasized that the Returning Officer may permit correction of such technical defects during scrutiny, and that the objection was not raised at the time of scrutiny but only as an afterthought in the election petition, further confirming its non-substantial nature. This principle applies to misdescription in official documents, including those in the title or description, where the identity remains clear and unambiguous.Checking relevance for Chief Conservator Of Forests, Govt. Of A. P. VS Collector Of Others...
Checking relevance for Rafiq Khan VS Laxmi Narayan Sharma...
Checking relevance for G. K. Akshata VS V. Raghavendra...
2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 307 : The Bombay High Court in Shanmugam’s case (cited in the document) held that misdescription of an accused, including in the cause title, is a curable defect and can be rectified by amendment. The court emphasized that if all necessary averments are made in the body of the complaint regarding the firm''''s liability and the issuance of cheques from the firm’s account, then any misdescription in the title may be corrected, and an application to implead the firm may be allowed. This principle applies even when there is ambiguity in the cause title due to jumbling of parties, as such errors are not fatal to the maintainability of the complaint.Checking relevance for Essem Enterprise VS Kolkata Municipal Corporation...
2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 692 : The document cites the case of J.D. Singh and Ors. v. Calcutta Port Trust (AIR 1994 CAL 148), where a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court observed that if a legal proceeding is initiated in the business name instead of the name of the proprietor, and there is no suggestion of ulterior or dishonest motive (such as tax evasion), the Court permits rectification to prevent a good claim from being defeated due to a bona fide mistake. This establishes that misdescription of the party in the title (e.g., suing in the name of a business rather than the proprietor) is a curable defect, especially when the error is not mala fide and does not prejudice the other party. The court emphasized that such mistakes, if bona fide, can be rectified to ensure justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities.
