SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. versus ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

SATYA JAIN (D) & ORS. versus ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

Interim applications for modification, clarification, or impleadment in respect of a Supreme Court judgment are not maintainable where the facts were not brought to the court's notice at the hearing or have occurred subsequent to the judgment. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 contemplate only review as a remedy. Typographical errors in the judgment may be corrected, but alteration or reopening of concluded issues is not permissible. Parties may seek remedies for their rights in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: Satya Jain (D) & Ors.; Respondent: Anis Ahmed Rushdie (D) through LRs & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Final Judgment; Consideration of Interim Applications
Outcome
Interim applications disposed of; typographical corrections in judgment allowed; substantive modification/clarification denied.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Interim Applications, Modification or Clarification of Judgment, Sale Deed Execution, Supreme Court Procedural Rules
Civil Law Specific Performance Interim Applications Modification or Clarification of Judgment Sale Deed Execution Supreme Court Procedural Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satya Jain (D) & Ors.

Appellant

Anis Ahmed Rushdie (D) through LRs & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Final Judgment; Consideration of Interim Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim applications for modification/clarification of Supreme Court judgment are maintainable
  2. 2 Whether directions for executing sale deed at market price require modification due to post-judgment events
  3. 3 Correction of typographical errors in judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Interim applications for modification, clarification, or impleadment in respect of a Supreme Court judgment are not maintainable where the facts were not brought to the court's notice at the hearing or have occurred subsequent to the judgment. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 contemplate only review as a remedy. Typographical errors in the judgment may be corrected, but alteration or reopening of concluded issues is not permissible. Parties may seek remedies for their rights in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Interim applications disposed of; typographical corrections in judgment allowed; substantive modification/clarification denied.

Orders

  • Corrected typographical errors in specified paragraphs of judgment dated 3.12.2012.
  • Denied requests for modification/clarification or alteration of judgment; parties allowed to seek remedies in law as available.