Supreme Court of India

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR.versusBVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: 2018 INSC 268
Decided: 28 March 2018
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: RANJAN GOGOI

Holding

A typographic error in a judgment may be rectified by substituting the relevant operative paragraph to accurately convey the Court's orders.

Summary

The Supreme Court delivered a judgment on 27 March 2018 in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Ltd. & Ors., allowing Civil Appeals Nos. 3330 and 3331 and dismissing Appeal No. 3332. After the judgment was reported, counsel for the appellant pointed out a typographic omission: the dismissal of Appeal 3332 was not reflected in the operative portion. The Court examined the submission and found it justified. Consequently, paragraph 52 of the operative portion was substituted to expressly state the correct orders for all three appeals. No order as to costs was made, and the clarification was directed to be noted in the official record. The appeals were thereby disposed of as per the corrected orders.

Issues considered

Whether a typographic mistake in a Supreme Court judgment can be corrected by substituting the operative paragraph to reflect the intended orders.

Subjects

typographic mistakejudgment clarificationSupreme Courtcivil appealprocedural correctionsubstitution of paragraph

Judgment

                           [2018] 6 S.C.R. 899                              899


         MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR.                               A
                                   v.
                 BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018)
                    MARCH 28, 2018                                          B
           [RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND
            MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]

      Judgments/Orders – Typographic mistake – Clarification in
Judgment delivered on 27 th March 2018 and reported in                      C
[2018] 6 SCR 861 – Clarification given pursuant to submission
made by appellant – Para 52 of the said Judgment (operative
portion) accordingly substituted.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3330
of 2018.                                                                    D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 4676 of 2015
                                 WITH
      Civil Appeal Nos. 3331 and 3332 of 2018.                              E
       Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gautam Talukdar,
Mishra Saurabh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
      The Order of the Court was passed by
                                                                            F
        MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. After pronouncement
of the judgment learned counsel for the appellant while mentioning in the
court drew the attention of the Court to typographic mistake, that while
allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018, the dismissal
of the Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited is not
mentioned in the said judgment, therefore, the same is to be corrected.     G
On verification, we find that the said submission is justified.
       Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be
substituted by the following:

                                                                            H
                                  899
900                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           Accordingly, it is made clear that Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018
      and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of
      2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no
      order as to costs.
           The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in
B     the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the
      judgment.

      Ankit Gyan                                             Appeals 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 "typographic mistake"Sign in to search