K.Balaji v. E.Vijayakumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The court corrects a typographical error in paragraph 6 of a previous order dated 17.11.2022 issued in Criminal Revision Case No.1095 of 2019, directing the registry to issue a fresh copy.
What did the court decide?
The registry is directed to correct paragraph 6 of the order dated 17.11.2022 and issue a fresh copy.
What the court decided
Crl.R.C.No. 1095 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Today, the matter is listed under the caption "for being mentioned"
at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent.
- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some
typographical error has crept in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Crl.R.C.No.1095 of 2019.
- Considering the above submission, the paragraph No.6 of the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Crl.R.C.No.1095 of 2018 shall read as follows :-
“6. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in addition to the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, if any reasonable amount is directed to be paid by the petitioner, he is ready and willing to comply with the same.”
- Registry is directed to replace the above paragraph in the
order dated 17.11.2022 in Crl.R.C.No.1095 of 2019 and issue a fresh
order copy.
Coram
G.K.Ilanthirayan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court