Clerical correction and binding precedent on goodwill: prior inconsistency gave way to the Supreme Court rule on estate inclusion.

Clerical or accidental mistakes in judgments and orders may be corrected under the slip rule without reopening the merits, but the power is confined to obvious errors and is distinct from substantive review. The binding law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 prevails over any inconsistent earlier order; where controlling precedent on goodwill was not brought to notice, the earlier answer could be treated as per incuriam and corrected. The operative position stated is that the goodwill of a dissolved firm forms part of a deceased partner's estate, and the corrected view was applied in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court could correct the earlier order by invoking the power to rectify a clerical or inadvertent mistake, and (ii) whether the earlier answer on includibility of goodwill in the estate had to be corrected in light of the binding Supreme Court decision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the court could correct the earlier order by invoking the power to rectify a clerical or inadvertent mistake.

Analysis: Clerical or accidental errors in judgments and orders are capable of correction under the provision dealing with amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. The judgment distinguishes such rectification from a substantive review and notes that the slip rule operates within a narrow compass, permitting correction of obvious mistakes without reopening the merits.

Conclusion: The court held that the clerical or inadvertent error could be corrected.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier answer on includibility of goodwill in the estate had to be corrected in light of the binding Supreme Court decision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The binding effect of law declared by the Supreme Court required the court to follow the earlier Supreme Court ruling on goodwill, which had held that the goodwill of a dissolved firm does not disappear on the death of a partner and is to be brought into the estate. The earlier order was treated as having been rendered per incuriam because the controlling Supreme Court authority had not been brought to notice, and a later or conflicting view could not displace the earlier binding precedent.

Conclusion: The court held that the earlier answer had to be corrected and the question had to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person.

Final Conclusion: The supplemental proceedings resulted in correction of the earlier opinion and reaffirmation that the goodwill of the dissolved firm formed part of the deceased partner's estate under the binding Supreme Court position.

Ratio Decidendi: Clerical or accidental errors in judgments may be corrected, but the law declared earlier by the Supreme Court binds all courts and must prevail over an earlier inconsistent order rendered without notice of that binding authority.

---