National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Corrects Counsel's Name in Judgment Due to Typographical Error. Tribunal Holds That Such Corrections Do Not Affect Merits of the Judgment.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal involved an application for correction of a typographical error in a previous judgment. The appellant, represented by multiple advocates, pointed out that the judgment pronounced on 21.08.2026 incorrectly listed Mr. Arpit Singhvi as the counsel for the appellant, instead of the actual advocates who represented the appellant during the hearing on 29.07.2026. The tribunal noted that the respondents were served in advance but were not present during the hearing of the application. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the mention of Mr. Arpit Singhvi was a typographical error and did not affect the merits of the judgment. Consequently, the tribunal ordered that the names of the correct advocates be substituted in place of the incorrect name in the judgment. The tribunal also directed that if a certified copy of the judgment had already been issued, it should be corrected accordingly. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records in judicial proceedings.

Headnote

A) Appellate Procedure - Correction of Typographical Error - Authority to Amend Judgment - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, 2026 - The tribunal recognized a typographical error in the judgment where an incorrect advocate's name was mentioned as counsel for the appellant instead of the correct advocates. The tribunal held that such clerical errors can be corrected without impacting the substantive merits of the judgment. The correction was ordered to ensure accuracy in the record (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the typographical error in the judgment regarding the counsel for the appellant can be corrected without affecting the merits of the case.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The tribunal disposed of the application by ordering the correction of the counsel's name in the judgment dated 21.08.2026 to reflect the correct advocates. It directed that if a certified copy had been issued, it should also be corrected accordingly.

Law Points

  • Typographical error correction
  • clerical error
  • judgment accuracy
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 253

I.A. No. 6989 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1226 of 2026

2026-09-29

Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal, Mr. Brijesh Gupta

Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi

Goyal Energy and Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application for correction of a typographical error in a judgment.

Remedy Sought

Correction of the name of the counsel for the appellant in the judgment.

Filing Reason

To rectify an inadvertent clerical error in the judgment.

Previous Decisions

Judgment dated 21.08.2026 incorrectly listed the counsel.

Issues

Correction of typographical error in judgment Impact of clerical error on judgment merits

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant's counsel argued that the name of Mr. Arpit Singhvi was incorrectly mentioned due to a typographical error. The tribunal noted that the correction did not affect the merits of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that typographical and clerical errors in judgments can be corrected without affecting the substantive merits of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

The prayer sought is purely of correction of typographical/clerical error and is not having any effect on the merits of the judgment pronounced by us. Thus the aforesaid IA is disposed of in terms that in the judgment dated 21.08.2026 passed in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1226 of 2026 the name of Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal & Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocates shall be read in place of Mr. Arpit Singhvi, Advocate.

Procedural History

The application I.A. No. 6989 of 2026 was filed to correct a typographical error in the judgment dated 21.08.2026. The tribunal heard the application on 29.09.2026.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Transfers Civil Suit to Calcutta High Court Due to Petitioner's Inconvenience. Transfer deemed necessary as multiple cases were pending in Calcutta and the petitioner faced difficulties attending court in Chennai.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment in Land Acquisition Dispute — Leasehold Rights Limit Entitlement. Leasehold rights are limited in nature, and the claimant is entitled to only a portion of the compensation.