Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 1514

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
I.A. No. 10 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007
Decided On : 06-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Subramanium Prasad, G. Umapathy, C. Paramasivam, B. Balaji.
For the Respondents: Fali S. Nariman, V.N. Raghupathy.

Courts have the authority to correct typographical errors in orders to reflect the accurate intentions of the decision.

Headnote:
Typographical Error - Correction of Order - The court corrected a typographical error in an order related to the allocation of water resources, changing the values from 10 cusecs, 20 cusecs, and 15 cusecs to 10000 cusecs, 20000 cusecs, and 15000 cusecs respectively.
Fact of the Case:

The court corrected a typographical error in an order related to the allocation of water resources.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that a typographical error had occurred in the order and corrected it accordingly.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court corrected the typographical error in the order dated 5th September, 2016, related to the allocation of water resources.
Final Decision: The court ordered the correction of the typographical error in the order dated 5th September, 2016, to reflect the accurate values of water allocation.

ORDER :

1. On mentioning, the matter is taken on Board.

2. Heard Mr. Subramanium Prasad, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in the order dated 5th September, 2016, at page No. 5 in paragraph No. 1 and sub-para (c) of paragraph No. 2, a typographical error has occurred. It is submitted by him that instead of 10 cusecs and 20 cusecs in paragraph 1 and 15 cusecs in sub-paragraph (c), it has to be read as 10000 cusecs, 20000 cusecs and 15000 cusecs respectively.

4. Mr. Fali S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka does not dispute the said position.

5. Let 10 cusecs and 20 cusecs in paragraph 1 and 15 cusecs in sub-paragraph (c) at page No. 5, be read as 10000 cusecs, 20000 cusecs and 15000 cusecs respectively.

6. Let the order dated 5th September, 2016, be corrected and read accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 1514

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADipak Misra, Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.State of Tamil Nadu – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka and Others – RespondentsI.A. No. 10 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007Decided On : 06-09-2016

Courts have the authority to correct typographical errors in orders to reflect the accurate intentions of the decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
I.A. No. 10 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 2007
Decided On : 06-09-2016