RE: VIJAY KURLE & ORS. versus .

The Court allowed the miscellaneous application and directed that the typographical error in paragraph no.7 be corrected by reading '(2) of Article 142' in place of '92) of Article 142'.

Parties: Applicants: Vijay Kurle & Ors.
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 21 March 2022
Procedural Posture: Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 2 of 2019 / Miscellaneous Application No. 486 of 2022 for Correction of Typographical Error / Corrigendum
Outcome: Miscellaneous application allowed and corrigendum ordered.
Legal Topics: Typographical Correction, Corrigendum, Article 142

Contempt of Court Constitutional Law Correction of Judgment Typographical Correction Corrigendum Article 142

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1

Parties

Vijay Kurle & Ors.

Applicants

Procedural Posture

Suo Motu Contempt Petition (crl.) No. 2 of 2019 / Miscellaneous Application No. 486 of 2022 for Correction of Typographical Error / Corrigendum

Legal Issues

1 Whether paragraph no.7 should read '(2) of Article 142' instead of '92) of Article 142'.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the miscellaneous application and directed that the typographical error in paragraph no.7 be corrected by reading '(2) of Article 142' in place of '92) of Article 142'.

Court Disposition

Miscellaneous application allowed and corrigendum ordered.

Orders

M.A. No. 486 of 2022 stands allowed.
In paragraph no.7, '92) of Article 142' to be read as '(2) of Article 142'.