Disposed¶17

Apeejay School v. Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Nov 2025LPA/682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA 682/2019; Apeejay School vs Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr; High Court of Delhi; corrigendum; correction of typographical error; amendment of paragraph 9; order dated 12.11.2025; substitution of expression; Tribunal order dated 18/01/2017; Impugned judgment dated 12/09/2019; learned Single Judge; reproduction of Tribunal order; absence of independent application of mind; Dinesh Mehta J.; Vimal Kumar Yadav J.; digitally signed order.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph No. 9 of the order dated 12.11.2025 amended by substituting “said judgment passed by learned Single Judge” with “order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017”; Private Secretary directed to offload the previous order and upload the amended order. ¶17

Apeejay School Vs Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the typographical error noted by the office in paragraph No. 9 of the Division Bench order dated 12.11.2025 calls for correction by substituting the expression “said judgment passed by learned Single Judge” with “order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017”.

¶11

Court's answer

The error pointed out by the office in paragraph No. 9 of the order dated 12.11.2025 was found to be correct.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In the second line of paragraph No. 9 of the order dated 12.11.2025, the expression “said judgment passed by learned Single Judge” stands substituted by “order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017”.

¶12

Key takeaways

As per the amended paragraph No. 9, the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 12/09/2019 contains nothing except reproduction of the paragraphs of the Tribunal order, and neither contains consideration of the Tribunal's order nor any independent application of mind. (Finding originates in the Division Bench order dated 12.11.2025, only partially reproduced here.)¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ.), by order dated 18.11.2025 in LPA 682/2019 (Apeejay School v. Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr.), corrected a typographical error in paragraph No. 9 of its earlier order dated 12.11.2025, substituting the expression “said judgment passed by learned Single Judge” with “order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017”. As amended, paragraph 9 records that the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 12/09/2019 contained nothing except reproduction of the paragraphs of the Tribunal order, and neither contained consideration of the Tribunal's order nor any independent application of mind. The Private Secretary was directed to offload the previous order and upload the amended order.

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 682/2019

¶4

APEEJAY SCHOOL .....Appellant Through: Mr. H.L. Tiku, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Mr. Rahul Regmi and Mr. Hitesh Wadhwa Advocates.

¶5

Versus

¶6

VED PRAKASH LAKHERA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manu Padalia Adv. for Respondent No. 1

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 18.11.2025

¶11

The matter comes upon board pursuant to the office note pointing out some typographical error in paragraph No. 9 of the order dated 12.11.2025. 2. Having perused the order, we find that the error so pointed out by the office is correct.

¶12

Hence, it is ordered that in second line of paragraph No. 9 of the order aforesaid, the expression “said judgment passed by learned Single Judge” shall stand substituted by the “order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017”. The amended paragraph No. 9 shall now read as under:-

¶13

“9. Having read the aforesaid corresponding paragraphs of the Impugned judgment dated 12/09/2019 and order passed by the Tribunal dated 18/01/2017, we find that it contains nothing except reproduction of the paragraphs of the Tribunal order. If we look at the so called operative part of the learned Single Judge's judgment, (reproduced by us in para 3 above), we find that it neither contains

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:27:54

¶16

consideration of the Tribunal's order nor does it have any independent application of mind.”

¶17

The Private Secretary is directed to offload the previous order and upload the amended order by incorporating the aforesaid while substituting paragraph No. 9 as indicated above.

¶18

DINESH MEHTA, J.

¶19

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶20

NOVEMBER 18, 2025/MR

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/11/2025 at 12:27:54

Apeejay School v. Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apeejay School v. Ved Prakash Lakhera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Chandra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Himanshu Kumar and Ors.

Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences & Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Sachdev & Ors.

Ram Avtar Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rattan Singh Bisht and Ors. Vs Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, through Its Director and Others & Anr.