CORPORATION BANK vs CRYSTAL INDIA FOOD AND BEVERAGES PVT LTD on 7 November 2023

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER DATE t A46t23 07 t11 t23 CONTD. ORDER.SHEET PAGE No CASE No Appticant by Shri Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate Respondents are ex-parte in OA 1351 /18 (out of which the present MA has arisen), therefore, service not affected upon them. Before parting with the merits of the case, the Application seeking condonation of Detay lA 3936123 dated22/08123 is taken up for consideration. It is contended on behatf of the Applicant-Bank that since after Judgment is pronounced on 27109121 no recovery proceeding has started, it was enquired and came to know that there is some clerical mistakes in the Judgment and immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the Judgment on 06107 123, the Bank has fited the present IAA on 27107123. lt was contended that the Appticant-Bank came to know about the mistake onty in the month of Juty 2023 and due to transfer of Branch Head the detay caused in fiting the IAA which is purety unintentional and bonafide. The Counsel for Appticant-Bank prays for condoning the detay in fiting lvlA. After giving due consideration to the reasons as narrated on behalf of the Bank and the documents ptaced before me, I am of the considered opinion that the detay caused in fiting the present MA is not deliberate but bonafide and unintentional. Thus the delay caused in fiting the lvlA is hereby condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing on merits. Heard the Counsel for Appticant on merits and perused the record. The Counsel for Appticant white drawing attention of this Bench to the relief ctause in OA and the Operative Portion of the Judgment dated 27 109121 contended that due to clerical mistake the ctaim amount is mentioned as Rs. 27,06,846.00 in place of Rs. 49,40,429.69 and similarty the date of judgment is also mentioned as 24109121 in place of 27109121. The Counsel for Appticant also pointed out that the Original Appl.ication Number is mentioned as OA 1351 /19 in place of OA No.1351 /18. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and the record of OA reveats that contentions as raised on behatf of the Appl.icant-Bank is correct since typographical error has crept into in the Judgment dated 27 lo9l21 that need correction. Hence, the amount of "Rs. 27,06,846.00" as mentioned in Para (i) of Judgment dated 27 109121 in OA 1351118 be read as "Rs. 49,40,429.69 (Rupees Fourty Nine Lac, Fourty REMARK

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET OATE PAGE No......... CASE No............. REMARK DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER Nine onty)". Likewise, at Page-3 of the said Judgm-ent tne aaie of pronouncemint ^of Judgment--^"24s i"pt"ru"r, 202\" be read as "27s September,2021." ' Simitarty in the first page of the Judgment.under heading the number of the case as mentioned, i'e', "Originit Apptication No.-1351/19" be read as "Oriiinat Api[ication No.-1351/18. Due correction be carried oui in the Judgment and put up before me' Thereafter the copy of corrected Judgment be issued to the Parties as Per rules. The l,1A 46123 stands attowed accordingty' Record be consigned to the record room. t)llz-+ (RamNifias Patet) Pr($ding officer