U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Asp Sealing Products Ltd.
In short. The case involves a typographical error in the recording of the date of a judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court of India. The core issue was the correction of the date from September 08, 2008, to September 08, 2009. The court's decision was to rectify this error, affirming that it was merely a clerical mistake. The key reasoning was based on the need for accurate record-keeping in judicial proceedings.
Facts
The case was brought before the Supreme Court of India to address a clerical error in the judgment record. The judgment in question had been pronounced on September 08, 2009, but was incorrectly recorded as September 08, 2008. This discrepancy necessitated a formal correction to ensure the integrity of the court's records.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another, did not present substantive arguments in this instance, as the matter was procedural in nature. Their request was simply for the correction of the typographical error in the judgment date. The court addressed this by acknowledging the error and confirming the correct date.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent, ASP Sealing Products Ltd., did not contest the correction of the date, as the issue was purely clerical. There were no opposing arguments presented regarding the substance of the case or the correction itself.
Precedents considered
No specific legal precedents were cited in this judgment, as the matter was straightforward and focused on correcting a clerical error rather than addressing substantive legal issues.
Legal principles
The legal principle at play in this case revolves around the accuracy of judicial records. Courts have a duty to maintain precise records of their proceedings, and clerical errors must be rectified to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court's rationale for correcting the date was based on the principle that judicial records must reflect the true and accurate proceedings of the court. The judges emphasized that the error was a typographical mistake and did not affect the substance of the judgment itself. The correction was necessary to ensure that the official record accurately represented the date of the judgment.
Outcome
The Supreme Court ordered that the date of the judgment be corrected from September 08, 2008, to September 08, 2009. The court directed the office to issue a necessary corrigendum to reflect this change.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining accurate judicial records and the court's commitment to rectifying clerical errors. It highlights the procedural aspect of judicial administration, ensuring that all records are correct and reliable for future reference.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.