SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 565

RANJAN GOGOI, R.BANUMATHI, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
Municipal Corporation, Ujjain – Appellant
Versus
BVG India Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Mr. Rajesh Inamdar, Mr. Aditya Bhat, Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad

ORDER :

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. On verification, we find that the said submission is justified.

2. Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be substituted by the following:

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.

3. The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top