https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112239 The Supreme Court dismissed the applications for clarification and/or modification, except for correcting typographical errors in the judgment. The errors related to the date and authorship of the consent decree were rectified. The Court emphasized the distinction between correcting clerical errors and modifying judgments based on substantive content, highlighting that applications disguised as clarification or modification seeking a review would not be entertained. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for review applications and upheld the distinction between correcting mistakes and altering the substance of a judgment. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2013 17:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112239 The Supreme Court dismissed the applications for clarification and/or modification, except for correcting typographical errors in the judgment. The errors related to the date and authorship of the consent decree were rectified. The Court emphasized the distinction between correcting clerical errors and modifying judgments based on substantive content, highlighting that applications disguised as clarification or modification seeking a review would not be entertained. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for review applications and upheld the distinction between correcting mistakes and altering the substance of a judgment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112239