Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Wrong quoting or non-quoting of statutory provisions - Does not invalidate the application or order [" 2018 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2852"]>["2018 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2852"], wrong mention of a statutory provision in an application is not sufficient to invalidate the application; similarly, mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction. This principle is reiterated across multiple judgments, emphasizing that such errors are procedural irregularities rather than jurisdictional defects.
Jurisdiction remains intact despite incorrect provision cited - As long as the authority had the requisite jurisdiction, the exercise of power is valid [" 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 744"]>["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 744"], [" 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13664"]>["2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13664"], ["
- Gauhati
"]>["- Gauhati
"]. For example, mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction ["- Gauhati
"].Wrong citation is considered a mere irregularity - Courts have consistently held that incorrect referencing of legal provisions is a procedural mistake, not a substantive defect, and does not affect the validity of proceedings or orders ["
SStella Silks Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 48743"]. For instance, not quoting proper section is a mere irregularity and it is not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings ["SStella Silks Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
"].The validity of orders or applications is preserved if the underlying authority had the power to act - Even if the wrong provision is cited, as long as the authority’s jurisdiction is clear, the order remains valid ["2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 2384"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3278"]. For example, if an authority has a power under the law, merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power ["2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 2384"].
Specific case references reinforce that technical errors in citing provisions do not nullify proceedings - The courts have consistently upheld that procedural errors related to wrong legal citations are not fatal, provided the substantive jurisdiction and authority are established ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26072"], ["THE COMMR. OF CE vs SUPERSPINNING MILLS LTD - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The overarching principle across the cited judgments is that quoting a wrong provision of law or failing to quote the correct provision does not invalidate an application, order, or proceeding, so long as the authority or court had the jurisdiction to act. These procedural irregularities are considered mere technicalities that do not affect the substantive validity of the proceedings or the authority’s power. Therefore, non-quoting or wrong quoting of provisions does not invalidate or nullify legal processes or applications ["2018 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2852"], ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 744"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 13664"].
In the intricate world of legal proceedings, precision in citing statutes is often seen as crucial. But what happens when a lawyer or party quotes the wrong provision—or omits it entirely? A common concern arises: quoting of wrong provision or non quoting of provisions does not invalidate the application. Is this true? This blog post dives deep into this issue, exploring from Indian courts that emphasize substance over hyper-technical form.
Drawing from established case law, we'll examine how courts typically view such errors, when they might matter, and practical tips for legal practitioners and litigants. Note: This is general information based on judicial trends and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Indian jurisprudence consistently holds that minor errors like misquoting or omitting legal provisions do not automatically invalidate an application, petition, notice, or order—provided the substantive requirements are met and the intent is clear. Courts prioritize delivering justice on merits rather than dismissing cases on technicalities.
As observed in a ruling, misquoting or non-quoting of a legal provision is not a ground for dismissing an application if the petition is otherwise maintainable and filed under the relevant provision2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1402. The application is treated as filed under the correct framework if it aligns with .
This principle echoes across various contexts:- : Mere wrong quoting doesn't invalidate if the action is justifiable under any provision. In our considered opinion it did not affect the contents of notice as it is well established that mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notice, if the proposed action can be justified under any statutory provision2011 0 Supreme(All) 3372.- Orders and notifications: The mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notification2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 222.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that interpretative slips don't bar relief. In a case, misquoting instead of 36(c) does not negate statutory rights if actions fall within the correct framework2012 0 Supreme(Cal) 856.
Similarly, mere mention of wrong provision of law when power exercised is available even though under a different provision is not by itself sufficient to invalidate exercise of that power
. This applies to customs, excise, and other regulatory matters.
A well-settled rule is: It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite therefor2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9442.
In stamp duty cases, It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order cannot invalidate the same2017 0 Supreme(All) 924. Even without referencing the exact section, orders stand if reasoned and lawful 2011 0 Supreme(All) 892.
aren't dismissed for wrong citations. It is settled preposition that quoting wrong provision in the application is not a ground for rejecting the entire application2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 540. Courts, especially post-COVID, avoid rigid limitation applications.
In evidence summons, an Application cannot be dismissed for wrong quoting of the provision2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4188. And for party relief, mis-quoting and wrong quoting of a provision will not disentitle a party in seeking relief2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 491.
While generally excused, significant errors altering legal meaning or rights can lead to issues:- Misinterpretation affecting proceedings: In stay cases, misquoting judgments can set aside orders2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 567.- Eviction and rent control: Upheld if grounds like are proven, despite initial misquotes 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 323.- : Allowed if errors impacted outcomes, e.g., pensions 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 804.
Courts may dismiss or reverse if the error causes fundamental prejudice, but this is exceptional.
In ferries settlements under , wrong provisions didn't invalidate as power existed under 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 222. Societies registration cancellations stood despite citation errors, as was clear 2011 0 Supreme(All) 892.
Misquoting or omitting provisions typically does not invalidate applications if:- Substantive compliance exists.- and intent are evident.- No prejudice to parties.
Key takeaways:- Courts favor merits: Hyper-technical dismissals are rare 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1402 2012 0 Supreme(Cal) 856.- Justify under any provision: Action validity trumps citation accuracy 2011 0 Supreme(All) 3372
.- Exercise caution: Precision prevents reversals in sensitive cases.
Legal practice thrives on accuracy, but Indian courts' substance-over-form approach protects genuine claims. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert.
References:- 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1402 2012 0 Supreme(Cal) 856 2002 0 Supreme(Bom) 567 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 323 2020 0 Supreme(Telangana) 804- 2011 0 Supreme(All) 3372
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9442 2017 0 Supreme(All) 924 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 491 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 540 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 222 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4188 2011 0 Supreme(All) 892
This post synthesizes judicial insights for educational purposes. Laws evolve; verify with current sources.
#LegalTips #IndianLaw #CourtRulings
Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors.,, [(2017)9 SCC 700] held that wrong mention of a statutory provision in an application is not sufficient to invalidate the application and thus, wrong quoting of provision of law is not a ground to dismiss ... In the present case, the main ground for dismissal of the application filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC is wrong quoti....
It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor." ... The wrong quoting of a provision or non-quoting of a provision will not deprive an authority to issue necessary directions for lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court has considered ....
The wrong quoting of a provision or non-quoting of a provision will not deprive an authority to issue necessary directions for lodging the FIR. ... It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority ... Only because a wrong provisi....
In our considered opinion it did not affect the contents of notice as it is well established that mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notice, if the proposed action can be justified under any statutory provision. ... Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent assessee submitted that it is not a case of mere wrong quoting of section but there is no question of charging of any interest as the respondent assessee had filed an #HL_START....
I find that in the show cause notice the charges against the respondents have been clearly spelt ou t and accordingly mere mention of wrong provision of law when power exercised is available even though under a different provision is not by itself sufficient to invalidate exercise of that power. ... Collector of Customs, Madras -1994 (72) ELT 377 (Tribunal) held that quoting of wrong section or rule in show cause notice or order not fatal so long as nature of violation correctly brough....
It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” ... By refuting the submissions that there is an error of jurisdiction, the learned State Counsel has submitted that mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not make a material difference to an order if the same is otherwise v....
It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” ... By refuting the submissions that there is an error of jurisdiction, the learned State Counsel has submitted that mere wrong quoting of a provision of law would not make a material difference to an order if the same is otherwise v....
Therefore, merely because wrong sections have been cited in the Show Cause Notice that by itself will not invalidate the confirmation of demands. ... In the light of the following rulings, it has been held that not quoting proper section is a mere irregularity and it is not sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. This has been held so by the Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. ... CCE - 1995 (9) RLT 817 (CEGAT-B1)=1995 (79) ELT 120 In view of large number of citations on this point, we are not inclined to accept the asse....
Mere quoting of a wrong provision/ wrong service rule itself would not vitiate the order of suspension. Therefore, since the respondents are contemplating the disciplinary proceedings, they have jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. ... Per contra, Mr.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that both in contemplation of Disciplinary Proceedings as well as for criminal case, the petitioner has been put into suspension and mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law ....
It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power can be justified under any provision of law then non-mention of the said provision in the order cannot invalidate the same. ... It is now well-settled principle of law that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an order in the event it is found that a power therefor exists.” ... Therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petiti....
Therefore, mis-quoting and wrong quoting of a provision will not disentitle a party in seeking relief.
It is settled preposition that quoting wrong provision in the application is not a ground for rejecting the entire application. Therefore, the first ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent for dismissing this application is not having any force.
The mere quoting of a wrong provision would not invalidate the notification. Alternately, the State government had power under Section 35 of the Ferries act to give directions to the Zila Parishad.
Therefore, the Court below should not have dismissed the Application on that ground. It is settled law that an Application cannot be dismissed fro wrong quoting of the provision. Further, the Court below was also not right in dismissing the Application on the ground that the Application was filed under Section 154 of the Evidence Act and it was not filed under Order 16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the Application is not maintainable.
Mere wrong quoting of a provision or non-quoting of a provision, cannot invalidate an order which is otherwise in accordance with law and also assigning reasons elaborately. Merely because the Registrar in his order did not refer to Section 24 of the Act and only mentioned that it was exercising powers under Section 12-D of the Act, it cannot be said by the appellants that the order of the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction. In the present case we find that the Registrar although mentioned in the original notice that it was one under Section 24 of the Act but in h....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
