Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Speaking to Minutes - Purpose and Limitations A note for speaking to minutes is primarily intended for correcting typographical errors or oversights in the original order, not for challenging, clarifying, or modifying substantive aspects of the judgment or order. Several judgments explicitly state that such notes are not equivalent to applications for clarification or review. For example, a note for speaking to minutes cannot be considered at par with a review application or in a given case with an application for clarification/modification of an order ["KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S GUJARAT B D LUGGAGE LTD - Gujarat"], ["JAYRAJBHAI DEVABHAI @ DEVKUBHAI VIKRAMA vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].Insight: Courts generally restrict speaking to minutes to clerical corrections, emphasizing that substantive challenges require proper proceedings like review or appeal.
Procedure and Court Practice Courts tend to dispose of speaking to minutes notes once the limited purpose is achieved, often after rectifying typographical errors or clarifying minor transcription issues. For instance, the praecipe for speaking to the minutes of the order is accordingly disposed of ["MINOO FRAMROZE BULSARA vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED - Bombay"], ["Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust vs State Of Assam Through Health And Family Welfare, Department, - Gauhati"].Analysis: Courts discourage using speaking to minutes as a substitute for substantive review, and such notes are dismissed if they seek to alter the core judgment or order.
Legal Implications and Restrictions Several rulings reinforce that speaking to minutes cannot be used to re-open or challenge the merits of an order. For example, such a course was not open to the learned Single Judge, while deciding a note for speaking to minutes ["KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S GUJARAT B D LUGGAGE LTD - Gujarat"], and the note for speaking to minutes is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight ["JAYRAJBHAI DEVABHAI @ DEVKUBHAI VIKRAMA vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].Conclusion: Courts consistently hold that speaking to minutes is a procedural tool for clerical corrections, not for substantive clarification or modification, and improper use may lead to dismissal.
References to Specific Cases and Orders Multiple cases demonstrate the consistent judicial stance: orders for speaking to minutes are disposed of after correction, and attempts to use them for clarification or to revisit substantive issues are rejected. For example, the clarification is therefore sought in that respect ["PUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT vs SHRI MALLESH RANAPPA KAMBLE - Bombay"], and the application for speaking to the minutes or cannot be considered in an application for speaking to the judgment and order ["THE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) AND EX-OFFICIO ADDL. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., PANAJI vs SHIVPRASAD S. NAIK - Bombay"].
Summary:Courts recognize speaking to minutes as a limited procedural device meant solely for rectifying clerical or transcription errors in orders. They generally dismiss or dispose of such notes when used to seek clarification, modify, or challenge substantive aspects of judgments, emphasizing the need for proper review or appeal processes for such matters ["Filomena Saldanha Through Power Of Attorney Mr. Frazier Saldanha VS Sunil Kohli Represented By His Power Of Attorney, Mr. Naval Bowry - Supreme Court"] ["KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD vs OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S GUJARAT B D LUGGAGE LTD - Gujarat"].
In the intricate world of judicial proceedings, parties often seek ways to refine or explain court orders after they are pronounced. A common question arises: speaking to minutes permits clarification? This phrase refers to the procedural tool known as a Note for speaking to the Minutes, frequently used in Indian courts. But does it extend to substantive explanations or modifications? Generally, judicial interpretations suggest no—this mechanism is strictly limited. This post delves into the legal boundaries, drawing from key judgments and precedents to provide clarity for litigants, lawyers, and legal enthusiasts.
Note: This article offers general information based on reported cases and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
The core principle established in relevant judicial decisions is that a Note for speaking to the Minutes is primarily intended for the correction of typographical or clerical errors and does not permit substantive clarification, modification, or alteration of the original proceedings. Any attempt to go beyond mere corrections exceeds the scope of this procedure and ventures beyond the jurisdictional limits of the issuing authority. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh VS Brijlal Tibrewal - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1260
This limitation preserves the finality and integrity of court orders, preventing misuse as a backdoor for reviews or reinterpretations.
These points underscore a narrow purpose, reinforced across multiple rulings.
This procedural device rectifies errors in the transcription of the original order or judgment. It targets oversights that crept in while transcribing, not the merits of the decision itself. As clarified in a pivotal High Court judgment:
A 'Note for speaking to the Minutes' is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight, which may have crept in while transcribing the original order. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh VS Brijlal Tibrewal - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1260
Parties may apply for fixes like incorrect dates or numbers, but nothing more.
Courts emphasize:
Once the judgment/order is pronounced and if any party to the same wants any rectification of any typographical error and any clerical mistake regarding the date or number, such a party may apply to the concerned Court for correcting such an error. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh VS Brijlal Tibrewal - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1260
Further:
It can never be considered to be an application of such a nature as review, clarification, or modification, and that passing orders beyond correction constitutes traveling beyond jurisdiction. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh VS Brijlal Tibrewal - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1260
In one instance, an order directing further instructions under this guise was set aside as an impermissible modification. Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh VS Brijlal Tibrewal - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1260
Supporting precedents echo this. For example, a Gujarat High Court ruling stated:
A note for speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification / modification of an order. PRAKASHBHAI RAMESHBHAI SAGAR & ANR. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8530
The note was dismissed when it sought substantive amendments, affirming it only corrects typographical or transcription errors. PRAKASHBHAI RAMESHBHAI SAGAR & ANR. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8530
Similarly:
A note for speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification / modification of an order. MANABHAI DHULABHAI VANKAR & ORS. vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7893
Other decisions illustrate practical applications and reinforce limits:
Contrastingly, broader attempts fail. A review petition was dismissed when it masqueraded as speaking to minutes without statutory basis under CPC Sections 114 and Order 47. Priyanka Communication(india) Pvt Ltd VS Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1226
Under the Companies Act, minutes as evidentiary records limit corrections to clerical errors, aligning with these principles. Nazir Hoosein VS Darayus Bhattena - 2000 4 Supreme 473
Permissible uses are rare and precise:- Clerical or typographical errors only.- No substantive clarifications, explanations, or modifications—these require review petitions or clarification applications.
Courts disallow overreach, as in delays excused via administrative notes but rejected for lacking merit. THE SECRETARY V/s YATINKUMAR BABUBHAI PANCHAL - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25401
For substantive changes:- File review applications under CPC Order 47.- Seek clarification petitions separately.- Avoid conflating with speaking to minutes, as seen in rejected licensing disputes. K P RAMADAS vs STATE OF KERALA - 2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35150
In summary, speaking to minutes does not permit clarification in the substantive sense—it's confined to fixing transcription slips. This safeguards judicial finality while allowing minor accuracies. Key takeaways:
Understanding these nuances can prevent procedural missteps. Stay informed, but always seek tailored legal counsel.
#SpeakingToMinutes, #CourtProcedures, #LegalClarification
These appeals are directed against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in an Application for Speaking to Minutes in Misc. ... Having considered the contention of both the parties, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice will be subserved if the appellant is given an opportunity to contest the Application for Speaking to the Minutes. ... To begin with, it is the contention of the appellant that the Application for Speaking to the Minute....
On the other hand, if the Panchayath can refuse to issue of licences or permits, awaiting such clarification, Section 10 of the Act referred to above would be rendered meaningless and such a situation, cannot be allowed to prevail. ... Finally, the second respondent passed Ext.P11 minutes stating that since the petitioner had already obtained all necessary permits, the Secretary of the Panchayath should issue Installation Permit and D&O licence. In spite of it, Panchayath did not take any action. ... The case pleaded by ....
Not only that, twice speaking to minutes note was filed in LPA itself. One such order in speaking to minutes note is dated 01.12.2023 which was accepted, as prayed for, by the applicant in speaking to minutes note dated 21.12.2023. ... Even mention made for replacing the advocate, that is also disputed and speaking to minutes note was also filed in that application. ... However, such clarification by way of speaking#HL_END....
In view of the above substitution and clarification, the note for speaking to minutes is disposed of. Registry to issue fresh writ accordingly. Direct service today is permitted. ... In view of the above clarification, the note for speaking to minutes is disposed of. Registry to issue fresh writ accordingly. (GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj ... NEUTRAL CITATION undefined IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD [On note for speaking to minutes of o....
I submit that, as regards the issue raised by Uber India and others that different States have different rules for issuance of contract carriage permits for motor cycles for use as bike taxis and it is difficult to obtain permits even in states which allows the same, this issue is in the purview of state ... No.15(b) of Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as also agreed to by the stakeholders at the hearing, no action is required to be taken by the Board on representations submitted by Uber India, Rapido and Ola seeking clarification#HL_E....
However, a note for speaking to minutes cannot be considered at par with a review application or in a given case with an application for clarification/modification of an order. A note for speaking to minutes can never be considered to be an application of such a nature. ... /clarification of the original order. ... Such a course was not open to the learned Single Judge, while deciding a note for speaking to minutes. ... As ....
for seeking clarification is dismissed. ... On the aforesaid ground, the application for speaking to the minutes or cannot be considered in an application for speaking to the judgment and order dated 13/10/2016.
A note for speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification / modification of an order. If the petitioner wants to challenge the said order then he has to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate Court. ... In view of above facts, the note dated 04.09.2025 filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not fall within the purview of “note for speaking to minutes”. Accordingly, present note for speaking to minutes ....
A note for speaking to Minutes cannot be considered at par with an application for clarification / modification of an order. In view of above facts, the note dated 07.08.2025 filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners does not fall within the purview of “note for speaking to minutes”. ... Accordingly, present note for speaking to minutes is dismissed (HASMUKH D. ... , reported in 2019 2 SCC 684, a note for speaking to Minutes....
With this clarification, we dispose of the oral request for speaking to the minutes. ... This matter is listed for speaking to the minutes. Matter is moved by the Respondent. ... Therefore the clarification is required that the interest is also payable to the Respondents. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. C. U.
The Speaking to Minutes is accordingly, allowed." 2.2. As the record unfolds, pursuant to the order dated 12.1.2021 r/w order dated 21.1.2021, the official Liquidator published public advertisement in Times of India and Gujarat Samachar in different editions on 22.1.2021. The said advertisement indicates that same is for 10,000 sq mtrs approximately for leasehold land along with building structure/ Civil Construction, Plant & Machineries (except Records) situated at Plot No.A/10, GIDC, Electronics Estate, Gandhinagar.
No one for the Agarwals applied for a clarification or speaking to the minutes in the days that followed. At no point did he say that I had not dealt with a point he canvassed, or that I had not taken into account the written submissions - simply because he never argued the latter. The very first time that this ground - of the written submissions not being considered - was raised was by these new lawyers in appeal.
Considering the contents of the Note for speaking to minute, the present Note for speaking to minutes is allowed. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in 4th line of paragraph No. 3.2. (page No. 4) words “Gujarat State Kabaddi Selection Tournament from 28.11.2002 to 29.11.2002” are mentioned inadvertently, which are required to be corrected as “55 Senior National Kabaddi Championship-2007 from 12.12.2007 to 16.12.2007. Registry to prepare and issue fresh writ accordingly.
ORDER : Considering the averments made in the application, it is revealed that instead of anticipatory bail order, the order reflects about the regular bail. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I–24/2019 registered with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station, Bharuch for the offenses punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the present note for speaking to minutes stands allowed. The order dated ....
3. The note for 'Speaking to Minutes' is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
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
