Supreme Court of India

M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: 2021 INSC 648
Decided: 20 October 2021
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: D Y CHANDRACHUDB V NAGARATHNA

Holding

The Court held that typographical errors in its judgment may be corrected under Article 226, and ordered the specific amendments to the amounts and counsel descriptions.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a miscellaneous application filed under Article 226 for correction of typographical errors in its earlier judgment dated 24 September 2021 in M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar. The application sought to amend the monetary figures erroneously recorded as Rs 56 crores and Rs 67 crores to Rs 5.6 crores and Rs 67 lakhs respectively, and to change Rs 67 crores in another paragraph to Rs 67 lakhs. It also requested correction of the description of counsel appearances. The Court examined its power to correct clerical mistakes in its own orders and, finding no substantive injustice, ordered the specific corrections. Consequently, the amounts and counsel titles were rectified as directed, and the miscellaneous application was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a typographical error in a Supreme Court judgment can be corrected under Article 226 of the Constitution
Whether the specific monetary figures and counsel designations cited constitute mere clerical errors warranting correction

Subjects

Typographical errorCorrection of judgmentArticle 226Civil appealSupreme CourtMonetary figuresLegal drafting

Judgment

1094                        [2021]REPORTS
                  SUPREME COURT   6 S.C.R. 1094              [2021] 6 S.C.R.


 A                  M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD.
                                         v.
                         THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
                    (Miscellaneous Application No 1608 of 2021)
 B                                       In
                          (Civil Appeal No 5728 of 2021)
                                 October 20, 2021
                  [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
 C                        BV NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Typographical error in the
       judgment – Correction of – Amount of Rs 56 crores and Rs 67 crores
       mentioned in paragraph 8 of the judgment to be read as Rs 5.6
       crores and Rs 67 lakhs respectively – Amount of Rs 67 crores in
 D     paragraph 10 of the judgment to be read as Rs 67 lakhs –
       Appearances of Mr S K Bagaria and Mr Saket Singh in paragraph
       15 to be read as Mr S K Bagaria, learned Senior Counsel and Mr
       Saket Singh, learned Counsel, respectively – Judgment/Order.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
 E     No.1608 of 2021
             In
             Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021
             From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court
 F     of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4300 of 2015.
             Praveen Kumar, Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Advs. for the appellant.
             Saket Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The Order of the Court was passed :
 G
                                     ORDER
             1. The Miscellaneous Application has been filed for correction of
       a typographical error in the judgment dated 24 September 2021.
             2. The amount of Rs 56 crores and Rs 67 crores mentioned in
 H     paragraph 8 of the judgment shall be corrected to read as Rs 5.6 crores
                                        1094
 M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR                             1095


and Rs 67 lakhs respectively and the amount of Rs 67 crores in paragraph          A
10 of the judgment shall be corrected to read as Rs 67 lakhs.
      3. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the appearances of Mr S K
Bagaria and Mr Saket Singh shall be corrected to read as Mr S K Bagaria,
learned Senior Counsel and Mr Saket Singh, learned Counsel,
respectively.                                                                     B
        4. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.


Nidhi Jain                               Miscellaneous Application disposed of.
                                                                                  C




                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Typographical error"Sign in to search