TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "(a) Allow the present Application and pass an appropriate order/direction modifying/correcting/clarifying the correct project completion date from 03.12.2023 to 03.12.2024 as mentioned in the judgment dated 13.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, and; (b) Pass any other Order(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the Appeal which was filed by the Respondent challenging the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph 2, the date mentioned on 03.12.2023 was an error which need to be corrected in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refuti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised. 20. In Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag [AIR 1967 SC 1440 : (1967) 2 SCR 18] this Court held : (AIR p. 1443, para 11) "11. Now, it is well settled that there is an inherent power in the court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. 'Every court', said Bowen, L.J. in Mellor v. Swire [(1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)] 'has inherent power over its own records so long as those records are within its power and that it can set right any mistake in them. An order even when passed and entered may be amended by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decree. According to one view, Section 152 is confined to acts of the Court and, therefore, mistakes of parties made in the pleadings or deeds and documents evidencing the transaction cannot be corrected (L. Ram Chander Sarup v. Mazhar Hussain [AIR 1919 All 264] ). The second view is that under this section and Section 151, plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended (see Shiam Lal v. Mt. Moona Kuar [AIR 1934 Oudh 352] , AIR at p. 354; Ram Chandra Sahu v. Jamna Prasad [AIR 1935 Oudh 92] ). A third view is that it is permissible under such circumstances to amend the decree and it is unnecessary to amend the plaint (Badri Pande v. Chhangur Pandey [AIR 1933 All 102] ; Jamini Bala Biswas v. Bank of Chettinad, Ltd. [AIR 1935 Rang 522] , AIR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment, decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under Section 152 to go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt with, by the parties in the deed. I agree with Gentle, C.J. that such a question can only be dealt with, in appropriate proceedings under the Specific Relief Act (see T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar v. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar [AIR 1948 Mad 13] ). But it may so happen that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[AIR 1948 Mad 13] and the view expressed by Young, J. in Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari [AIR 1934 All 100 (2)] . Applying these principles to the facts of this case, I think that the rectification asked for is impossible. If there has been a mistake in the original agreement it is a mistake which is fundamental, and it is impossible without going into evidence, to decide as to what the parties meant. There are facts in favour of the contention put forward by either party and I cannot describe it as an error (if there is at all any error) as can be called 'an accidental slip or omission' as contemplated in Section 152. In any event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 152 or even under Section 151 of t....