Partly allowed

Meera Syal v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/7889/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application, the petitioner sought correction of typographical errors in an order dated 1.2.2018. The court allowed correction of errors in paragraph 2.2 regarding respondent names but dismissed the prayer regarding errors in paragraph 3, finding no error as no suit was filed against the petitioner's husband.

What did the court decide?

Correction of two parts in paragraph 2.2 allowed; prayer for correction in paragraph 3 dismissed. Application disposed of.

Meera Syal Vs Union of India & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7889/2016

¶4

MEERA SYAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pawan Madan, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Harsh Pandit and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Shahi, Advs. for R-1 Ms.Trisha Nagpal,Adv.for R-4 & 5

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶6

O R D E R % 23.02.2018

¶7

CM No.6907/2018

¶8

Issue notice. Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of applicant no.1/respondent no.1. Ms. Trisha Nagpal accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicants/respondents no.4 and 5.

¶9

This is an application moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking correction of typographical errors which, according to her, the applicant, have crept in the order dated 1.2.2018.

¶10

Insofar as paragraph 2.2 of the order dated 1.2.2018 is concerned, the error is pointed out in two parts of the said paragraph. These read as follows:

¶11

(i) “since the petitioner is being harassed by respondent no.4 and her husband”,

¶12

(ii) “she wishes to seek cancellation of the said gift deed”. 3.1. According to the counsel for parties, the abovementioned two parts should read as follows:

¶13

(i) “since the petitioner is being harassed by respondent no.4 and her son i.e., respondent no.5”.

¶14

(ii) “the husband of the petitioner wishes to seek cancellation of the said gift deed”. These two parts of paragraph 2.2 of the judgment are corrected accordingly.

¶15

Insofar as correction in paragraph no.3 is sought, according to me, there is no error. It is not suggested that the relationship between the petitioner and her husband has soured. What is generally said is that the relationship of the petitioner and husband, vis-a-vis, other family members and respondent no.4 has soured.

¶16

4.1 Accordingly, the prayer made to this extent is not allowed.4698

¶17

The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶19

FEBRUARY 23, 2018 rb

Meera Syal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Syal v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Mittal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mangal Vs North Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Gnct of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Vs Shri Bhikamber

Mayawati and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Inder Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Taurant Projects Ltd. Vs M/S Engineers India Ltd. and Anr.

Businees System India Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar Singh & Anr.

Nk Jagbir Singh (Retd) & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rohini Aggarawal & Anr. Vs Registrar of Companies & Ors.

Rrc Construction Link (Jv) & Anr. Vs National Commission for Schedule Tribe through Its Vice Chairmen, and Ors.

Rajiv Khosla and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Sps Steel Rolling Mills Limited Vs Vil Limited

Eltek Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.