Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nisha M. Thakore, J
Kalpeshbhai Kishorbhai Oza – Appellant
Versus
Pushpaben Pramodbhai Dalwadi – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2178 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vilav K Bhatia
For the Respondents: Sunil B Parikh

Courts possess inherent authority to rectify accidental clerical or mathematical errors in their judgments, ensuring that written decrees accurately reflect the intended judicial outcome and provided facts, thereby upholding the precision of the judicial record.

Headnote:(A) Practice and Procedure - Correction of clerical errors - Power of Court to correct accidental slips or technical omissions in judgments - Pursuant to a request to speak to the minutes, the court identified a mathematical discrepancy regarding the total compensation quantified in a prior ruling - The court exercised its authority to amend the error to ensure the final order reflects the accurate arithmetic determination of the award. (Paras 2-4)

Facts of the case:
An application for speaking to minutes was filed to address an error in the quantum of compensation mentioned in a previous order. The court reviewed the records and found that an incorrect total amount had been inadvertently recorded, necessitating a rectification to align the order with the actual compensation calculation.

Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the objective error in the previously recorded sum. It directed that the incorrect figure be replaced with the accurate, revised figure, ensuring the record correctly represented the intended judicial decision.

Issues: Whether the court has the authority to correct a mathematical or clerical error in a final order upon being apprised of the same via a memorandum to speak to the minutes.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts exercise inherent power to rectify accidental slips or mathematical inaccuracies in their judgments to maintain the integrity and precision of orders, ensuring that the written decree conforms to the actual intent and corrected calculations of the adjudicating authority.

Result: Application allowed; order modified for the correction of the compensation amount.

Modification of Judgment dtd. 09/04/2026 in R/FA/2178/2015

ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026

ORAL ORDER

The note for speaking to minute has been moved by Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 – insurance company thereby inviting attention of this Court to the error which has crept in the oral judgment dated 9th April, 2026 passed by this Court in the captioned appeal.

Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2 – insurance company, on perusing the note, as well as observations made in paras - 13 and 14, it appears that in para-14 instead of Rs.7,29,952/-, which is the actual enhanced amount of compensation directed to the insurance company to be deposited, is required to be incorporated instead of Rs.8,93,452/-, which is the total amount of compensation determined by this Court in the captioned appeal.

Thus, in para-14 of the oral judgment dated 9th April, 2026 passed by this Court in the captioned appeal, the amount of Rs.8,93,452/- is hereby corrected and replaced as Rs.7,29,952/-.

Considering the above, Registry is directed to issue fresh writ incorporating the correct figure of Rs.7,29,952/- instead of Rs.8,93,452/- in para-14 of the oral judgment dated 9th April, 2026 passed by this Court in the captioned appeal.

With this observations, note for speaking to minute stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADNisha M. Thakore, JKalpeshbhai Kishorbhai Oza – AppellantVersusPushpaben Pramodbhai Dalwadi – RespondentR/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2178 of 2015

Courts possess inherent authority to rectify accidental clerical or mathematical errors in their judgments, ensuring that written decrees accurately reflect the intended judicial outcome and provided facts, thereby upholding the precision of the judicial record.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nisha M. Thakore, J
Kalpeshbhai Kishorbhai Oza – Appellant
Versus
Pushpaben Pramodbhai Dalwadi – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2178 of 2015