Limited rectification of factual and typographical errors allowed; recall refused where PMLA Section 50 validity was already settled.

Typographical and factual errors in an earlier Delhi HC order were examined for limited rectification, not substantive recall. The court noted that the alleged mistakes arose from intermingling facts from connected proceedings, including references to summons, payment figures, attributed allegations, and findings recorded in paragraphs that were only allegations. It held that the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been upheld, so that point could not support recall. The order was rectified only to correct identified factual references and remove erroneous findings, while the substantive outcome of the earlier order remained unchanged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier judgment warranted recall on account of alleged factual and typographical errors, and whether the impugned order required rectification to correct mistaken references and delete erroneous findings.

Analysis: The application was confined to correction of errors said to have crept into the earlier order because facts relating to connected proceedings had been intermingled. The identified mistakes related to the source of summons, the amount allegedly paid, the attribution of certain allegations, and the recording of findings in paragraphs that were clarified to be allegations rather than judicial conclusions. The Court also noted that the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been upheld, and therefore the grievance did not furnish any basis for recall. The corrections were confined to typographical and factual rectification, while the substantive outcome of the earlier order remained unaffected.

Conclusion: No ground for recall was made out. The impugned order stood rectified only to the extent of the identified corrections, and the application was rejected in substance.

---