MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. v. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Ranjan Gogoi
R. Banumathi
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment Date: 2018-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) was substituted to reflect this disposition. The Registry shall note the clarification in the main judgment and corrections may be effected.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr.

Respondents

BVG India Limited
Ors

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Devadatt Kamat
• Rajesh Inamdar
• Aditya Bhat
• Gautam Talukdar

Counsels for Respondents

• Mishra Saurabh
• Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru
• Mushtaq Ahmad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment records a corrigendum to the order pronounced on 27 March 2018 in Civil Appeals arising from Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore in W.P. No. 4676 of 2015, concerning the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. and BVG India Limited and others. The Court notes a typographic mistake in the operative portion of the earlier judgment, reported in [2018] 6 SCR 861, and proceeds to substitute Paragraph 52 to reflect the intended disposition. The correction confirms that Civil Appeals Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed, and there shall be no order as to costs. The matter is heard by a three-judge bench comprising Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar. After the judgment, counsel for the appellant highlighted the inadvertent omission that the earlier order had not mentioned the dismissal of CA 3332; the court verified the submission and issued the corrective substitution so that the operative portion now records the correct outcome. The Registry is directed to note the clarification in the main judgment, and the necessary corrections may be effected. The order ends with ‘Appeals disposed of’, clarifying the final disposition of the three connected appeals.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt; the record shows that learned counsel raised a request for correction of a typographic mistake in the judgment pronounced on 27 March 2018. The Court substituted Para 52 to reflect the operative portion, aligning the disposition with what was intended in the court’s order.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt; the text records the appeals filed and the correction order but does not provide distinct submitted arguments from the respondent side.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. v. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.	[2018] 6 SCR 861	Mentioned Only	The judgment refers to the earlier judgment delivered on 27 March 2018 and reported in [2018] 6 SCR 861 for the purpose of clarifying a typographical error in the operative portion; no substantive treatment of the cited case’s ratio is indicated.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

899 [2018] 6 S.C.R. 899 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. A v. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018) ## MARCH 28, 2018 B ## **[RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]** _Judgments/Orders – Typographic mistake – Clarification in Judgment delivered on 27[th] March 2018 and reported in_ C _[2018] 6 SCR 861 – Clarification given pursuant to submission made by appellant – Para 52 of the said Judgment (operative portion) accordingly substituted._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018. D From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 4676 of 2015 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 3331 and 3332 of 2018. E Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gautam Talukdar, Mishra Saurabh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was passed by F ## **MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.** After pronouncement of the judgment learned counsel for the appellant while mentioning in the court drew the attention of the Court to typographic mistake, that while allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018, the dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited is not mentioned in the said judgment, therefore, the same is to be corrected. G On verification, we find that the said submission is justified. Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be substituted by the following: H 899 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. - A Accordingly, it is made clear that Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. - The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in - B the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the judgment. Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of. C D E F G H