evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 10 S.C.R.


MR. RAJEEV NOHWAR

VERSUS CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

MAHARASTRA STATE, PUNE & ORS Miscellaneous Application No. 1770 of 2021

(Civil Appeal No. 5970 Of 2021)

NOVEMBER 18, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD

AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Judgment - Correction - Held: The expression "Collector of Stamps, Mumbai" in paragraph 32 of the judgment dated 24.09.2021 in the C.A.No.5970 of 2021 to be substituted by the expression "Collector of Stamps, Pune, Rural" - Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous Application No 1770 of 2021 in Civil Appeal No 5970 of 2021.

Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-09- 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5970 of 2021 of this Court.

Varun Singh, Gaurav Nair, Ms. Pranati Bhatnagar, Varun Singh, Advs. for the appellant.

Aaditya A. Pande, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Advs. for the respondents.

The following order of the Court was passed:

ORDER

1. In paragraph 32 of the judgment of this Court dated 24 September 2021, the expression "Collector of Stamps, Mumbai" shall stand substituted by the expression "Collector of Stamps, Pune, Rural.

The order shall stand corrected accordingly.

2. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.

Ankit Gyan Application disposed of.
XXX

THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1444/2021)

NOVEMBER 22, 2021

[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Practice and Procedure - Recall of earlier order - By order dated 20.04.2021, FIR quashed by High Court by a detailed reasoned order - Thereafter, on 28.04.2021, High Court took up the matter suo moto and recalled the order dated 20.04.2021 - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - In view of s.362 CrPC, the Court does not have the power to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error - There is no power, except u/s.362 CrPC, which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error - The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order passed after contest and that too suo moto - Earlier order dated 20.04.2021 was wrongly recalled by the High Court - Order dated 28.04.2021 set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.362.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1444 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2021 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. MC No. 5866 of 2020.

Rajit, Vaibhav Niti, Abraham Mathan, Justine George, Ms. Madhavi Agrawal, Divyanshu Agrawal, Advs. for the Appellant.

G. Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Ms. Beena Prakash, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Vedant Singh, Vishisht Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was passed :

O R D E R

Leave granted.

An FIR was lodged by the respondent, which was challenged by the appellant by way of a petition filed before the High Court under

[2021] 7 S.C.R. 1115

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


Section 482 Cr.P.C. By a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. Thereafter on 28.04.2021, the High Court took up the matter suo moto and recalled the order dated 20.04.2021. Challenging the same, this appeal by way of special leave petition has been filed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that in view of Section 362 Cr.P.C. the Court does not have the power to alter the judgment and order once passed, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error. In the present case, by a judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 FIR had been quashed by the High Court by a detailed reasoned order, which has been recalled by the impugned order dated 28.04.2021. There is no power, except under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. The same does not empower the court to recall the earlier order passed after contest and that too suo moto.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 28.04.2021 could not have been passed and the earlier order dated 20.04.2021 has wrongly been recalled by the High Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.04.2021 is set aside.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed.
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 679

M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANR

P. BALASUBRAMANIAN

M.A. No. 364 OF 2021

(Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2021)

FEBRUARY 24, 2021

[N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Addition/deletion of words - By judgment dated 10.02.2021, direction by this Court to the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs.11,20,000/- along with interest accrued thereupon to the complainant-respondent within the stipulated period - However, said amount of Rs.11,20,000/- was lying in a non-interest earning account with the designated Bank - In view thereof, the words "along with interest accrued thereupon" are deleted - Issuance of direction to the Registry to transfer the said amount to the respondent within the stipulated period.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M.A. No.364 of 2021 in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.11.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A.No. 447 of 2002.

The following order of the Court was passed:

ORDER

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

Perused the Office Report for directions dated 23.02.2021.

Vide Judgment dated 10.02.2021, this Court directed the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs.11,20,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh twenty thousand) along with interest accrued thereupon to the respondent within two weeks.

It is stated in the Office Report dated 23.02.2021 that the amount of Rs.11,20,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh twenty thousand) is lying in a

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


non-interest earning account with the UCO Bank, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi.

In view of the above, we delete the words "………along with interest accrued thereupon……." from paragraph 22 of the judgment dated 10.02.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2021 @ SLP(Crl.)No.1876/2018 and direct the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs.11,20,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh twenty thousand) to the respondent within two weeks from today.

MA stands disposed of accordingly.

Nidhi Jain M.A. disposed of.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 4 S.C.R.


UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.

M.A. No. 175/2021

(Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2020)

FEBRUARY 02, 2021

[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]

Judgment/Order - Typographical error in the judgment - Correction of - The words "including an employee of the appellant" stand deleted from paragraph 4 of the judgment in UMC Technologies Private Limited versus Food Corporation of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3687 of 2020, dated 16.11.2020 reported in [2020] 13 SCR 1175 - Rest of the order remain as it is - Application allowed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M.A. No. 175 of 2021 in Civil appeal no. 3687 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2019 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 2778 of 2019.

Sahil Tagotra, Subhro P. Mukherjee, Mohit Pandey, Advs. for Appellant.

The Order of the Court was passed :

ORDER

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to allow the prayer made by the appellant/ applicant.

Accordingly, the Application is allowed.

The words "including an employee of the appellant" stand deleted from the paragraph 4 of the Judgment dated 16.11.2020. Rest of the order to remain as it is.

Ankit Gyan Application allowed.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 6 S.C.R.


M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD.

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

(Miscellaneous Application No 1608 of 2021)

(Civil Appeal No 5728 of 2021)

October 20, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND

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 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 No.1608 of 2021

Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court 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 :

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 paragraph 8 of the judgment shall be corrected to read as Rs 5.6 crores

and Rs 67 lakhs respectively and the amount of Rs 67 crores in paragraph 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.

4. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.

Nidhi Jain Miscellaneous Application disposed of.

M/S MAGADH SUGAR & ENERGY LTD. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR