The High Court has inherent power to rectify errors and omissions arising from accidental slips, even in the absence of any specific provision conferring power of review or rectification on the High Court.

( 1 ) FACTS : Points for determination : Submission of the respective counsel :

( 2 ) A small but interesting question has been raised before us by Mr. Khaitan and Mr. Chowdhury appearing in support of the application and opposing the application, respectively. This question has two limbs, which we are called upon to answer.

( 3 ) THE first limb is with regard to Rule 1d of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Under the said rule, the unquoted shares are valued in the manner provided therein which in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT, was held to be mandatory and is to be followed in every case where unquoted equity shares of a company are to be valued. Rule 1d provides for an exception in a phrase " (other than investment company or a managing agency company)". The said exception appears to be quoted in the decision in Bharat Hari Singhania as is quoted in the order dated September 4, 2001, passed in AWT No. 3730 of 1993 (Lalit Mohan Thapar v. CWT, ), of which rectification has been asked for. In the operative part of the said order dated September 4, 2001, the exception phrase has not been mentioned or indicated.

( 4 ) THIS, according to Mr. Khaitan, creates the confusion in respect of the valuation of unquoted shares of the assessee, which, according to him, is an investment company. He points out from the paper book at page 5 being a part of the assessment order and page 17 being part of the appellate order where the assessee-company was held to be and described as an investment company. According to Mr. Khaitan, this is not in dispute. However, Mr. Chowdhury does not admit the same to be undisputed and according to Mr. Chowdhury, there is no finding that the assessee was an investment company.

( 5 ) THE application that has been filed has since been given a nomenclature of review. But in the course of his argument Mr. Khaitan had in his usual fairness, pointed out that within the scheme of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, there is no scope of review. This is the settled principle of law. But the absence of power of review does not preclude the High Court or the Supreme Court while dealing with wealth-tax matters from carrying out rectifications, which is permissible to the income-tax authorities Under Section 154 or 254 of the Act. He attempted to point out that the order, which he is seeking is in the realm of rectification and not a review.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to him, the first question is that Rule 1d, as is apparent from the scheme and revealed from the expression, does not include investment companies and managing agency companies for the purpose of valuing unquoted equity shares in terms of Rule ID of the 1957 Rules. In order to establish this proposition, no amount of argument is necessary, neither is there any scope of forming two opinions with regard thereto nor does it require any amount of interpretation of the provision contained in Rule 1d. Therefore, while applying Rule 1d, the omission to note that the assessee was an investment company is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which had since been missed by the court while passing the operative part of the order dated September 4, 2001, passed by this court in AWT No. 3730 of 1993, a reference Under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.

( 7 ) THE second question that has been raised is whether such a mistake could be corrected within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court Under Section 27 (1) of the 1957 Act or, in other words, in the absence of any specific provision conferring power of review or rectification on the High Court, whether the High Court in exercise of its power inherent in it, can rectify such mistake. Though, however, he points out that this power inherent in the court is not a power, which is conceived of and recognised by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC) nor that conferred upon it Under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to Mr. Khaita