M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. A2Z Engineering Ltd., approached the High Court for correction of typographical errors in a previous order dated June 25, 2026. Specifically, the petitioner sought the deletion of the words "in original" from the seventeenth paragraph, first line, of the said order. Additionally, the petitioner requested the correction of a date in the same line, from "6.3.2023" to "29.4.2024". The Union of India and the CGST respondent were represented. The court noted that the rest of the order dated June 25, 2026, remained unaltered and directed that the current order be read conjointly with the previous one.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's request for correction of typographical errors in its order dated June 25, 2026. It was held that the words "in original" were indeed erroneously recorded in the seventeenth paragraph, first line, and were directed to be deleted. Furthermore, the Court found that the date "6.3.2023" was incorrectly stated in the same line and was ordered to be corrected to "29.4.2024". The Court emphasized that all other portions of the order dated June 25, 2026, would remain unaltered. The operative direction was to read the current order conjointly with the order dated June 25, 2026, incorporating the specified corrections. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts have the power to correct clerical and typographical errors in their own judgments to ensure accuracy and reflect the true intent of the court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the words "in original" were erroneously included in the seventeenth paragraph, first line, of the order dated June 25, 2026, and should be deleted. 2. Whether the date "6.3.2023" was erroneously recorded in the seventeenth paragraph, first line, of the order dated June 25, 2026, and should be corrected to "29.4.2024". The petitioner argued for the deletion of "in original" and the correction of the date, citing typographical errors. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments against these corrections in the provided judgment excerpt. The court was primarily dealing with a request for administrative correction of its own previous order.