2001 (5) TMI 879 - SC - Companies Law

Whether omission of pendente lite interest to the decree by the trial court was an accidental or clerical error? Held that - Appeal allowed. The correct position of law is that a decree cannot add to or subtract from any relief except what has been provided in the judgment. But this is not the case here. In this case the trial court awarded mesne profit however in the decree it was written as net profit. On an application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the decree under section 152 the word net was the case of typographical mistake and therefore not applicable to the present case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over partnership firm leading to arbitration award.
2. Claim for pendente lite interest in execution proceedings.
3. Preliminary objection on maintainability of special leave petition.
4. Jurisdiction of High Court under section 152 for amendment of decree.
5. Applicability of legal precedents on accidental omission in decree.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute arising from a partnership firm, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded a sum to be paid by the appellant to the respondent in instalments. The respondent filed a suit for decree in terms of the arbitration award, which was decreed without pendente lite interest. Subsequent legal actions were taken, including filing of civil revision petitions and review petitions at various levels, leading to the current civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. The respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the special leave petition based on the principle of res judicata. The appellant argued against this objection, citing legal precedents to support their position. The Court analyzed the precedents and held that the dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment of the High Court did not constitute res judicata for filing a special leave petition against the order passed in the review petition, especially when the review petition was filed prior to the special leave petition against the main judgment.

3. The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 152 by awarding pendente lite interest when neither the arbitrators nor the trial court had done so. The Court considered the legal position on accidental errors in decrees and held that the omission of pendente lite interest was not an accidental mistake that could be corrected under section 152. The Court distinguished cases where the judgment provided for interest but was omitted in the decree, which could be corrected under the same section.

4. Legal precedents were discussed to support the Court's decision on the jurisdiction under section 152 for amendment of decrees. The Court emphasized that a decree cannot add or subtract from relief provided in the judgment unless there is a typographical mistake. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles.

5. In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment under challenge, and directed that there shall be no order as to costs. The detailed analysis covered various legal aspects, including jurisdiction, precedents, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions to arrive at the final decision in the case.