Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for J. Samuel VS Gattu Mahesh...

J. Samuel VS Gattu Mahesh - 2012 1 Supreme 568 : A typographical error does not render a complaint defective if it is a genuine mechanical or clerical mistake in typing or printing, such as a slip of the hand or finger, or due to mechanical failure. However, the act of neglecting to perform an obligation—such as omitting mandatory requirements in a pleading—cannot be classified as a typographical error. In this case, the omission of 3 to 4 sentences containing mandatory requirements under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and Form 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be a failure of due diligence, not a typographical error. Therefore, the plea of typographical error was unsustainable, and the complaint was not rendered defective solely because of such an error when the omission stemmed from neglect rather than a mechanical mistake.Checking relevance for Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur VS State Of Uttar Pradesh...

Checking relevance for Telangana Housing Board VS Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Thru. Lrs. ...

Checking relevance for Commissioner Of Sales Tax VS Subhash And Co. ...

Checking relevance for SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD. ...

SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS POWER MECH PROJECTS LTD. - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 540 : A typographical error is not sufficient to render a complaint defective. The court held that a typographical error is obvious and occurs due to inadvertent mistakes such as wrong key presses, spelling errors, or omission/duplication of words or sentences. In this case, there was no such obvious typographical error in the order dated 12.02.2019, and therefore, the direction to furnish a bank guarantee from a Scheduled Indian Bank located in India remained valid and enforceable despite any alleged inconsistency.Checking relevance for Kaveri Plastics VS Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul...

Checking relevance for Vempati Rama Kotamma VS Oruganti Jayaprakash Reddy...

Vempati Rama Kotamma VS Oruganti Jayaprakash Reddy - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 729 : A typographical error does not render a complaint defective if it is not due to lack of due diligence. In J. Samuel and Ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh and Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 300, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the term ''''typographical error'''' refers to mistakes made during printing or typing, such as mechanical failures or slips of the hand, and does not include errors arising from neglect or failure to perform an obligation. Therefore, a plea of typographical error cannot be entertained where the omission results from lack of due diligence, as such cases are impliedly barred under the Code. This principle supports the proposition that not every error in a pleading is fatal, but only those that stem from negligence or omission of duty are not excusable.Checking relevance for Shashikala Sriram Shetty vs Jagannath Honnaya Shetty (Deceased)...

Shashikala Sriram Shetty vs Jagannath Honnaya Shetty (Deceased) - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3962 : A typographical error does not excuse the lack of due diligence in filing pleadings, and such an error cannot be used as a basis to justify a defective complaint. The court held that the plea of typographical error cannot be entertained where the failure to act stems from neglect or omission rather than a mechanical or clerical mistake during typing or printing. The term ''''typographical error'''' excludes errors of ignorance or failure to perform an obligation, and thus cannot be invoked to validate a defective complaint when the underlying issue is a lack of due diligence.Checking relevance for Satish Kumar VS Kalyani Devi...

Checking relevance for Hari Singh VS Balvir Singh...

Hari Singh VS Balvir Singh - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1841 : A typing error (or typographical error) does not excuse the omission of mandatory requirements in a plaint, and such omissions cannot be treated as mere clerical mistakes if they result from lack of due diligence. The court held that an omission of 3 to 4 sentences constituting mandatory content cannot be considered a typographical error, especially when it stems from neglect rather than mechanical or accidental slip. Therefore, a complaint is not automatically rendered defective merely because of a typing error, but such an error cannot be invoked to justify failure to comply with substantive legal obligations where there was no due diligence.

• Typographical Error Does Not Make a Complaint Defective - Main points and insights:
• A typographical error refers specifically to mistakes made during printing or typing of documents, not to errors arising from lack of due diligence or negligence ["1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - Bombay"].
• Errors that are merely typographical, especially those that are apparent on the face of the record, can often be corrected or considered during the adjudication process, and do not necessarily invalidate the complaint or claim ["LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CONSUMER WELFARE ASSOCIATION - Consumer"], ["Pawan Kumar vs Dsssb - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
• Courts and tribunals have recognized that errors such as interchanged figures or minor misprints in documents, including insurance policies, are often considered accidental and can be rectified if brought to notice before claims are processed ["Pawan Kumar vs Dsssb - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["INDCAT00000154482"].
• A mistake in figures or words that does not alter the substance of the contract or claim, especially if it is an evident typing mistake, generally does not render the complaint or claim defective; courts tend to interpret such errors in context, emphasizing the intention of the parties ["LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CONSUMER WELFARE ASSOCIATION - Consumer"], ["INDCAT00000154482"].

• The distinction is made between non-disclosure or defective causes of action versus simple typographical or printing errors, the latter of which are often considered rectifiable and do not impact the validity of the complaint ["1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - Bombay"].

• Analysis and Conclusion:

• The consensus across multiple judgments is that a typing or typographical error, particularly when obvious and not affecting the core substance of the claim, does not make a complaint or claim defective. Courts and tribunals prefer to interpret documents reasonably and in context, correcting minor errors to prevent injustice ["1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - Bombay"], ["Pawan Kumar vs Dsssb - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CONSUMER WELFARE ASSOCIATION - Consumer"].
• Such errors are often acknowledged and accepted if they are identified before the finalization of claims or judgments, and courts generally avoid dismissing cases solely on the basis of minor typographical mistakes ["INDCAT00000154482"].
• Overall, the main insight is that a typing error alone, especially when evident and not prejudicial, does not invalidate or make a complaint defective, emphasizing the importance of substantive assessment over minor clerical mistakes ["1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - Bombay"].