Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 1239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mistake or slip occurred in the order that such power is preserved in the Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 but the power cannot be exercised when there is no mistake or slip in the order or decree. Present is not a case where any mistake or slip occurred in the order passed by this Tribunal. The date 03.12.2023 was a date which was noticed by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order and which date is reflected in the order while dismissing the appeal. This is not a fit case to exercise any inherent jurisdiction to correct any error in the judgment - Application is rejected. - [ Justice Ashok Bhushan ] Chairperson And [ Barun Mitra ] Member ( Technical ) For the Applicant Mr. Raghav Anand , Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Amey Hadw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 421 . He has relied on paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the judgment which is as follows:- 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning, there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such corrections (see St. Nazaire Co., In re [(1879) 12 Ch D 88 (CA)] ; Preston Banking Co. v. William Allsup Sons [(1891-94) All ER Rep 688 : (1895) 1 Ch 141 (CA)] ). Nor can it be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a ministerial kind (see Mellor v. Swire [(1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)] ). But the difficulty arises when it is found that the mistake is not one of the Court but is a mistake of the parties themselves. Mistakes in the description of properties in deeds, is illustrative of this kind of mistake. It is the parties who have made the mistake, and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, or that of its ministerial officers, there can be no doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an accidental slip or omission . A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an accidental slip or omission . Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In my opinion, it is not necessary in such a case to amend the pleadings or to rectify the deed, therefore, no question arises as to whether the Court has power to do so. It is, however, quite clear that such cases must be of rare occurrence, and the scope thereof is severely limited. The power cannot be extended to the resolving of controversial points, and a decision as to what the parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. For such a purpose, the proper proceeding is by way of a suit under Section 31, Specific Relief Act. To this extent, I agree respectfully with the view enunciated by Gentle, C.J. in T.M. Ramakrishnan Chet .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates