Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Misc. Application No. 12240 of 2010

Attorney(S)

Mr ND Nanavati, Sr. Advocate, with Mr Kunan B Naik for Applicant(s) : 1,
Mr YN Ravani for Respondent(s) : 1,
Mr PK Jani, Public Prosecutor for Respondent(s) : 2,

Judges

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Oral Order — Speaking-to-Minutes

Factual and Procedural Background

The document is an oral order dealing with a "Speaking-to-Minutes" application filed by learned advocate Mr. Kunan B. Naik (the applicant) seeking correction of inadvertent mistakes in a judgment dated 29.10.2010. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati appeared with Mr. Kunan Naik and identified specific errors in the judgment. The respondent is the CBI, represented by learned counsel Mr. Y.N. Ravani, who filed a reply and placed on record an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The matter in which the judgment was rendered is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The court was asked to consider whether to permit corrections to the judgment (apparently typographical or inadvertent errors) while the case remains sub judice before the Apex Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court may correct apparent or typographical mistakes in its judgment while the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Whether making such corrections would amount to a review of the judgment.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Learned advocate Mr. Kunan B. Naik (with Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavati) sought correction of inadvertent mistakes in the judgment dated 29.10.2010.
Specifically, they asked that in Para 17 of the judgment the name "Naimuddin" be substituted with "Nayamuddin" (as mentioned in Para 4 of the Note).
They also asked that in Para 86 the name "V.L. Solanki" (appearing inadvertently) be corrected to "V.K. Rathod" (as mentioned in Para 10 of the Note).

Respondent-CBI's Arguments

Learned counsel Mr. Y.N. Ravani filed a reply and placed on record an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
He submitted that even if there is an apparent or typographical mistake, the court should be reluctant to make clarifications while the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
He expressed a reservation that making such corrections could amount to review and therefore should not be undertaken by the court at this stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the applicant's request to correct inadvertent errors in the judgment dated 29.10.2010 but noted at the outset that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and, for that reason, the court would generally be disinclined to entertain requests to clarify the judgment.

The court recorded the respondent's position that even apparent typographical mistakes should not be corrected while the Apex Court has the matter under consideration and that making corrections might amount to a review. The court expressed difficulty with the contention that correcting an apparent typographical error constitutes review and observed that an apparent typographical mistake could, in principle, be corrected without amounting to a review.

The court also commented on the respondent's conduct in filing a contested reply to a speaking-to-minutes application, describing the respondent's emphasis and attitude as excessive and noting this observation was placed on the record.

Balancing these considerations, and while reiterating its general reluctance to make clarifications during pendency before the Apex Court, the court applied a narrow approach: it refused to make broad clarifications but found that two specific, obvious inadvertent errors should be corrected. The court relied on the internal consistency of the judgment and the charge-sheet identification (noting that A-14 in the charge-sheet is "V.K Rathod") to conclude that the reference to "V.L Solanki" in Para 86 was an obvious mistake requiring correction.

Accordingly, the court allowed only the two specific corrections sought and declined to make any further clarifications, leaving any other alleged mistakes to be considered in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Speaking-to-Minutes application is DISPOSED OF with limited corrections. The court ordered the following specific corrections to its judgment dated 29.10.2010:

In Para 17 of the judgment, the name "Naimuddin" is to be corrected to "Nayamuddin" (as stated in Para 4 of the Note).
In Para 86 of the judgment, the name "V.L. Solanki" is to be corrected to "V.K. Rathod" (as stated in Para 10 of the Note).

Implications: The direct effect is that the two identified inadvertent name errors in the judgment are corrected. The court expressly declined to make any other clarifications; any other alleged mistakes can be examined in the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The order does not purport to create any new precedent beyond the limited corrections ordered and does not undertake a substantive review of the judgment.

Accordingly, the Note (Speaking-to-Minutes) stands disposed of.

Show full summary ...

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

ORAL ORDER BELOW SPEAKING TO MINUTES

The present Speaking-to-Minutes has been filed by learned advocate Mr. Kunan B. Naik for the applicant to correct some mistakes in the judgment dated 29.10.2010 which have crept in inadvertently.

2. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. N.D Nanavati appearing with learned advocate Mr. Kunan Naik has referred to these mistakes.

3. It was pointed out that except some obvious typographical mistakes in the names, the court would not be inclined to clarify as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. Therefore, he has fairly stated that as mentioned in Para 4 of the Note, in Para 17 of the judgment, the name “Naimuddin” needs to be substituted with “Nayamuddin”. He has also stated, referring to Para 10 of the Note that the name “V.L Solanki” as appearing in Para 86 of the judgment has been inadvertently stated though it refers to “V.K Rathod”. He has therefore submitted that it may be clarified.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Y.N Ravani appearing for the respondent-CBI has filed a reply to the Note and has also placed on record a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has submitted that even if there is an apparent mistake, he has reservation and the court may not clarify the same even if it is a typographical mistake, since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel Mr. Ravani submitted that it is a subject-matter of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, his emphasis is that even if it is a typographical mistake, the court may not even touch and clarify. He also submitted that it would amount to review.

6. Though the submissions have been made, curiously, one fails to understand how it could be said to be a review and an apparent mistake like a typographical mistake in the name which might have crept in inadvertently could always be corrected which would not amount to a review.

7. Normally, in such speaking-to-minutes reply is not filed or contested, but it appears that the respondent has been attaching too much of significance and it only reflects the attitude, to say the least. This kind of attitude by a counsel is also not justified even if the stand is taken by the respondent. This is only to place on record the attitude.

8. However, since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, at the outset it was made clear to learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Nanavati that the Court would not be entertaining and, still, when it has been so much opposed by learned counsel Mr. Ravani, this detailed order has been passed and the Court is not inclined to make any clarification as stated in the Note except the two names which apparently has been inadvertently stated like the spelling referred to in Para 4 of the Note ‘Naimuddin” which needs to be substituted as “Nayamuddin” and the name of “V.L Solanki” which is required to be substituted with the name “V.K Rathod” as stated in Para 10 of the Note.

9. As can be seen from the reading of the Para itself, it is specifically referred that he is A-14 in the charge-sheet and A-14 in the charge sheet is “V.K Rathod”. Therefore, it is an obvious mistake that instead of V.K Rathod, the name of V.L Solanki has been mentioned which is required to be corrected.

10. The present Speaking-to-Minutes, therefore, stands disposed of with the aforesaid clarification that as stated in Para 4 of the Note, the name of “Naimuddin” is ordered to be corrected as “Nayamuddin” in Para 17 of the judgment and as mentioned in Para 10 of the Note, name of “V.K Rathod” should be mentioned instead of “V.L Solanki” in Para 86 of the judgment which has been stated inadvertently.

11. Subject to the aforesaid clarification for obvious mistakes, no other clarification is required to be made even if there is some mistake, which can be perused and considered while deciding the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Accordingly, the Note stands disposed of.

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Summary of Oral Order — Speaking-to-Minutes

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondent-CBI's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Comments