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

2023 Supreme(MP) 145

SUNITA YADAV
Sunil Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh Tomar – Respondent


Advocates:
R. P. Gupta for appellant;
Shrinivas Gajendragadkar for respondent No. 2.

ORDER

1. By filing I.A. No. 1261 of 2023, an application for review/modification of order dated 20.2.2023, learned counsel for the appellant argued that due to typographical error in the penultimate paragraph or order dated 20.2.2023 passed in this case, it has been mentioned that "The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall not cary and interest, however, if the respondents fail to make the payment of compensation within a period of 12 months from today, then the enhanced amount of awad shall carry penal interest at the rate of 6% per annum." while it should have been "the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid by the respondents within a period of 12 weeks and shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization," During the course of arguments, additional prayer has been made by learned counsel for the appellant that in the third page of the order dated 20.2.2023 dut to typographical error, the enhanced amount has also wrongly been typed in word as "Rs. One Lacs only" in place of "Rs. Two Lacs only". Hence, prayed for Review/correction in the order dated 20.2.2023.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2

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