National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Correction of Typographical Error in Judgment. Tribunal Corrects Counsel's Name in Judgment to Reflect Actual Representation During Hearing.

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

Case Note & Summary

The matter involved an application for correction of a typographical error in a judgment delivered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. 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 error was purely clerical and did not impact the merits of the judgment. After reviewing the relevant orders and the judgment, the tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel that the name should be corrected to reflect the actual advocates present. Consequently, the tribunal disposed of the application by ordering that the names of Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agrawal, and Mr. Brijesh Gupta be substituted in place of Mr. Arpit Singhvi in the judgment. The tribunal also directed that if a certified copy of the judgment had already been issued, it should be corrected in accordance with this order.

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 regarding the counsel's name and agreed to correct it as it did not affect the merits of the case. The correction was deemed necessary to reflect the accurate representation of the counsel who argued the case. Held that the correction was permissible and ordered the amendment accordingly (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 ordered the correction of the counsel's name in the judgment dated 21.08.2026 to reflect the actual advocates who represented the appellant during the hearing. The correction was deemed necessary and did not affect the merits of the judgment.

Law Points

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

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 254

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

Correction of a clerical error in a judgment.

Remedy Sought

Correction of the counsel's name in the judgment.

Filing Reason

To rectify a typographical error that did not affect the merits of the case.

Previous Decisions

Judgment dated 21.08.2026 incorrectly listed the counsel.

Issues

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

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant's counsel argued for correction of the counsel's name due to a typographical error. The tribunal acknowledged the error and agreed to amend it.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that clerical errors in judgments can be corrected to ensure accurate representation without affecting the substantive merits of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

the name of Mr. Arpit Singhvi shown as the Counsel for the Appellant in the judgment is due to inadvertent typographical error 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

Procedural History

The tribunal heard the application for correction on 29.09.2026 after the judgment was pronounced on 21.08.2026.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Election Commission in Delimitation Dispute Over Villages Shifted by River Course Change. Section 9(1)(b) of Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Section 11(1)(b) of Delimitation Act, 1972 Bar Alteration of Constituency Bo...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Enhances Permanent Alimony in Divorce Case Due to Husband's Higher Income and Wife's Financial Dependence. The Court modified the High Court's alimony award from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 per month with periodic increases, considering th...