Notes for speaking to minutes cannot modify original court orders, and are limited to clerical errors.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL No. 22 of 2012 In COMPANY APPLICATION No. 503 of 2011 In COMPANY PETITION No. 100 of 1997 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 90 of 2012 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD - Appellant(s) Versus OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S GUJARAT B D LUGGAGE LTD & 4 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NAVIN K PAHWA for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s) : 1, MS AMEE YAJNIK for Opponent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 2 - 3.

MR BH BHAGAT for Opponent(s) : 3, RULE UNSERVED for Opponent(s) : 4, MR TR MISHRA for Opponent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR and 2/6 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Date : 31/07/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)

1. Leave to delete RESPONDENT NO.4.

2. This appeal was admitted by the earlier Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 26.03.2012. By an order dated 26.06.2012, the appeal was fixed for final hearing on 09.07.2012.

3. Today, the matter is place before us for hearing.

4. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 23.12.2011, below note for Speaking to Minutes filed by the present appellant. The appellant, herein, was the original respondent No.4 in Company Application No.503 of 2011. Aforesaid company application was filed by IFCI Limited, who is respondent No.2, herein. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 23.12.2011, gave certain directions as to how the Official Liquidator should distribute the amount.

The learned Single Judge also found that the disbursement, as ordered, is preliminary and the same shall be subject to the final report of the Charted Accountant and the financial institution 3/6 JUDGMENT shall file the usual undertaking with the office of the Official Liquidator. Subsequently, the present appellant, who was respondent No.4 in the aforesaid company application, submitted a note for speaking to minutes for necessary correction in the order. The learned Single Judge passed a detailed order, while disposing of the said note for speaking to minutes on 23.12.2011, and issued further directions in furtherance of the original order dated 23.11.2011. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. On behalf of the appellant, learned Counsel, Mr. Pahwa, submitted that by passing the impugned order, below the note for speaking to minutes filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge has virtually modified the original order, as if, the learned Single Judge was deciding a review application or an application for modification/clarification of the original order. It is also submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge below the note for speaking to minutes is, therefore, beyond the powers of this Court of deciding such a note.

6. We have also heard Ms. Yajnik, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 an