2020 (10) TMI 334 - Tri - Companies Law

Rectification of mistake - applicant submit that upon reading of the entire decision dated 15.03.2017 r.w. order dated 26.04.2017 it can be seen that the name of the Respondent No. 3 in the order has been removed due to some inadvertence and such being a clerical error arising from accidental slip, needs recertification - HELD THAT - Assuming there is some typographical error or accidental slip in the order which could not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble NCLAT and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then, even in the interest of justice, it cannot be done by us without having express permission/NOC from the appellate forum/s. Otherwise, in our humble view, it may tantamount to cause material alteration in the order which may change the purport of the order in appeal as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble NCLAT. Hence, it is now no left open to this Court. Application not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of clerical errors in a previous judgment.

Analysis:
1. The Applicants, legal heirs of the deceased, sought rectification of a clerical error in a previous judgment where shares were to be re-allotted to original shareholders. The error was in mentioning only one respondent instead of all original shareholders.
2. The Respondent opposed the application, citing it was time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review. The Respondent referred to Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows rectification within two years unless under appeal.
3. The court noted that the matter had been appealed and confirmed by higher forums, making it legally impermissible to rectify the order. The Respondent argued that the application was not maintainable after the final dismissal by the Supreme Court.
4. The court reviewed the previous bench's corrections to the judgment, highlighting that the omission of a respondent's name was a conscious decision. Allowing further rectification might necessitate a review of the entire order, which was not within the current court's jurisdiction.
5. Despite acknowledging a possible typographical error, the court emphasized the need for express permission from the appellate forums to avoid altering the order's purport confirmed by higher courts.
6. The court concluded that the present application was not maintainable and rejected it. However, it granted liberty to the concerned party to seek appropriate relief from the higher forum for any necessary modification or correction in the judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the rectification of clerical errors in a previous judgment and the legal arguments presented by both parties.