TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9th October, 2003 has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 of the Appeal contending that certain factual errors had crept in the said judgment which could not be pointed as they were not present at the hearing of the appeal. Two apparent factual errors have been pointed out at page No. 2 and at page No. 6 of the judgment wherein the date of the consent decree passed in F.A. No. 450 of 1981 has been mentioned as 22-5-1988 instead and place of 22-5-1998 and the said consent decree was passed by a Single Judge instead of a Division Bench of the High Court. 2. It has further been pointed out that although this Court noticed that the appellant herein was not a party to the First Appeal before the High Court but the same had wrongly be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ito justitiae. Reliance, in this regard, has been placed on Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag [(1967) 2 SCR 18], B. Shivananda v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Another [(1994) 4 SCC 368] and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [(2001) 4 SCC 181]. 6. Dr. G.C. Bharuka, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, on the other hand, would submit that this application for clarification and/or modification being in effect and substance an application for review is not maintainable in law. Reliance has been placed on Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 296] and Common Cause v. Union of India and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 222)]. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, as no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 8. A bare perusal of the purported application for clarification and/or modification clearly goes to show that except two typographical errors at pages 2 and 6 of the judgment, the other statements made therein either relate to the mistake of the High Court or the merit of the matter. 9. So far as, the purported error pointed out at page 6 of the judgment is concerned, it appears, this Court merely recorded therein the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the same are not the findings of this Court. 10. It is furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is not contemplated in law. If there exist errors apparent on the face of the record an application for review would be maintainable but an application for clarification and/or modification cannot be entertained unless it is shown that the same are necessary in the interest of justice. An application which is in effect and substance an application for review cannot be entertained de'hors the statutory embargo contained in Order XL, Rules 3 and 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 13. In Gurdip Singh Uban (supra) the law has been laid down in the following terms : "17. This procedure is meant to save the time of Court and to preclude frivolous review petitions being filed and heard in open Court. However, with a view to avoid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;Recently in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 353] referring to Order XL, Rule 3, this Court opined : "6. As noted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, [1980 (4) SCC 680], Suthendraraja v. State [1999 (9) SCC 323], Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam [2001 (5) SCC 714] and Devender Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi [2003 (2) SCC 501] notwithstanding the wider set of grounds for review in civil proceedings, it is limited to 'errors apparent on the face of the record' in criminal proceedings. Such applications are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the judgment and decree which could be corrected. 19. In Jayalakshmi Coelho (supra) whereupon Mr. Misra relied upon this Court observed : "13. So far as the legal position is concerned, there would hardly be any doubt about the proposition that in terms of Section 152 CPC, any error occurred in the decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip may be rectified by the Court. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to mistake of the court and whatever is intended by the court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein, otherwise it would only be destructive to the principle of advancing the cause of justice." 20. This Court upon analyzing som....