Court rejects rectification application, stresses need for appellate permission before altering orders

The court found that the application for rectification of a clerical error in a previous judgment, which omitted a respondent's name, was not maintainable as the matter had been confirmed by higher courts. Despite recognizing a possible typographical error, the court emphasized the need for permission from appellate forums before altering the order. The court rejected the application but granted liberty to seek relief from higher forums for any necessary modifications.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of clerical errors in a previous judgment.

Analysis:
1. The Applicants, legal heirs of the deceased, sought rectification of a clerical error in a previous judgment where shares were to be re-allotted to original shareholders. The error was in mentioning only one respondent instead of all original shareholders.
2. The Respondent opposed the application, citing it was time-barred and beyond the jurisdiction of the court to review. The Respondent referred to Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows rectification within two years unless under appeal.
3. The court noted that the matter had been appealed and confirmed by higher forums, making it legally impermissible to rectify the order. The Respondent argued that the application was not maintainable after the final dismissal by the Supreme Court.
4. The court reviewed the previous bench's corrections to the judgment, highlighting that the omission of a respondent's name was a conscious decision. Allowing further rectification might necessitate a review of the entire order, which was not within the current court's jurisdiction.
5. Despite acknowledging a possible typographical error, the court emphasized the need for express permission from the appellate forums to avoid altering the order's purport confirmed by higher courts.
6. The court concluded that the present application was not maintainable and rejected it. However, it granted liberty to the concerned party to seek appropriate relief from the higher forum for any necessary modification or correction in the judgment.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment regarding the rectification of clerical errors in a previous judgment and the legal arguments presented by both parties.

---