Rectification cannot rest on a later contrary decision when the order was already dictated before that decision existed.

An order's operative date is the date it is dictated in court, not the later date of issue. A later Larger Bench decision cannot be relied on to seek rectification of an order that was already decided before that contrary view came into existence. The note states that rectification is unavailable on this ground because the subsequent decision did not exist when the earlier order was made, so it could not constitute a basis for correction. The rectification request was therefore rejected and the earlier order remained unchanged.

---

---

Issues: Whether a rectification application could be entertained on the ground that a later Larger Bench decision had taken a contrary view, when the Tribunal's order had been dictated before that later decision though issued afterwards.

Analysis: The operative date for the Tribunal's decision was the date on which the order was dictated in Court, not the later date on which it was issued. Since the relied-upon Larger Bench decision came after the date of dictation, it could not be treated as a basis for rectification. A subsequent contrary decision does not provide a ground to correct the earlier order by way of rectification.

Conclusion: Rectification on this ground was not permissible and the application failed.

Final Conclusion: The request for rectification was rejected, and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later contrary decision cannot be the foundation for rectification of an order when the order was already decided before that later decision came into existence.

---