Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Master Construction Company Private LTD. VS State Of Orissa...
1965 0 Supreme(SC) 366 : Under Rule 83 of the relevant rules, the Commissioner of Sales Tax may correct any arithmetical or clerical mistakes, or any error apparent on the face of the record, arising from an accidental slip or omission in an order passed by him. Such errors must be apparent on the face of the record and not depend on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. This includes slips or omissions in the judgment itself, such as when the decretal order does not conform to the judgment, or when the judge inadvertently says or omits something they did not intend. However, this remedy does not permit re-argument on merits or the raising of new arguments not previously advanced.Checking relevance for Telangana Housing Board VS Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Thru. Lrs. ...
2018 5 Supreme 105 : An apparent error or omission in a judgment, particularly one that constitutes a clerical or arithmetical mistake, may be corrected only if it arises from an accidental slip or omission and is apparent on the face of the record. Such errors include mistakes in writing, typing, or calculation that were not intended by the court. However, a discrepancy that requires re-survey, involves a major factual error, or calls for modification of conscious adjudication on issues cannot be treated as a clerical error. Corrections of such errors are not permissible after a long delay, especially when the claim is made after 25 years, as it is not within the scope of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The remedy for a clerical error is limited to cases where the error is accidental, apparent on the record, and not dependent on argument or dispute. In cases involving significant factual disputes or major discrepancies (e.g., a claimed error of 11 acres versus a survey finding of 20.18 acres), the correction is not permissible under the doctrine of clerical error, especially after a prolonged period.Checking relevance for Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. VS Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. ...
2007 8 Supreme 549 : Under Section 22 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, the remedy for an apparent error in a judgment or order is limited to rectification of a mistake that is ''''apparent from the record.'''' Such a mistake must be patent, obvious, and visible on a mere inspection of the record, without requiring lengthy argument, investigation, or debate. The power to rectify does not extend to cases where a revision or review of the order is intended, nor does it permit the obliteration of the original order and its substitution with a new one. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The remedy is confined to errors that are self-evident and incapable of argument or dispute, such as clerical or arithmetical errors, or clear misinterpretations of law that are manifest on the face of the record.Checking relevance for M. Ahammedkutty Haji VS Tahsildar, Kozhikode Kerala...
2005 2 Supreme 768 : Under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, the assessing authority is empowered to rectify any mistake apparent on the record. Such a mistake is one that is patent, manifest, or self-evident from the face of the record, without requiring any inquiry beyond the record. The power of rectification can be exercised when the error is clear and obvious, such as when the assessing authority acted without jurisdiction—e.g., in the case of a newly constructed building where the local authority had not determined the capital value under Section 6(1), rendering the assessing authority''''s initial order void. In such circumstances, the assessing authority may rectify the mistake by relying on the capital value determined by the local authority, provided the principles of natural justice are observed, including giving reasonable opportunity to be heard. This remedy is available even if the original order was ultra vires, as long as the error is apparent on the record.Checking relevance for RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS VINOD KUMAR RAWAT...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 : Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a judgment may be open to review if there is a ''''mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.'''' An error apparent on the face of the record is one that is self-evident and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny, or reasoning to detect. It must be a patent error, not merely a wrong decision. The power of review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-hear or correct an erroneous decision on merits. The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting clear, manifest errors that stare in the face of the record, such as when a court disposes of a case without applying its mind to a provision of law that gives it jurisdiction. The remedy for an apparent error or omission in a judgment is therefore review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, but only if the error is evident on the face of the record and not one that requires argument or reasoning to identify.
