https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113126 Section 152 CPC was held to permit correction only of clear clerical, accidental, ministerial or typographical slips, not a disputed question about what was intended when an order was made. On the facts, the recorded dismissal of the company application instead of the company petition was not shown to be an obvious accidental error, so rectification was refused. The appellate court was also said not to interfere merely to contradict the judge's own record of proceedings unless the entry was inherently impossible or self-contradictory. The refusal to correct the earlier order was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113126 Section 152 CPC was held to permit correction only of clear clerical, accidental, ministerial or typographical slips, not a disputed question about what was intended when an order was made. On the facts, the recorded dismissal of the company application instead of the company petition was not shown to be an obvious accidental error, so rectification was refused. The appellate court was also said not to interfere merely to contradict the judge's own record of proceedings unless the entry was inherently impossible or self-contradictory. The refusal to correct the earlier order was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113126