Rectification of Stay Order to Reflect Applicant's Business Activities Accurately

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH rectified a mistake in a stay order by substituting incorrect references to construction related to dams with the accurate description of the applicant's activities as commercial and industrial construction services along with educational/charitable institutes. The rectification application was allowed, and the corrected version of the stay order was upheld to ensure accuracy in reflecting the nature of the applicant's business activities.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistake in a stay order

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, the issue involved was the rectification of a mistake in a stay order dated 27-5-2016. The applicant had filed an application seeking rectification of the stay order, which directed them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there was an error in the stay order regarding the nature of construction activities undertaken by the applicant. The stay order incorrectly mentioned that a lot of construction had been done by the applicant related to dams, whereas the applicant was engaged in commercial, industrial construction services, and educational/charitable institutes. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake apparent on record and corrected the order to reflect the accurate nature of the applicant's activities.

After hearing the arguments and examining the stay order, the Tribunal found that the mention of construction related to dams and related activities was incorrect. The Tribunal rectified the mistake by substituting the incorrect phrases in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the stay order with the accurate description of the applicant's activities as commercial and industrial construction services along with educational/charitable institutes.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of mistake application. The applicant's compliance with the stay order was noted, and the rectified version of the stay order was upheld. The rectification was made to ensure that the order accurately reflected the nature of the applicant's business activities and to rectify the error in the initial order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the mistake in the stay order to accurately reflect the nature of the applicant's activities. The rectification was granted based on the error apparent on record, and the corrected version of the stay order was upheld, acknowledging the applicant's compliance with the original order.

---