LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of a previous judgment.
CASE TYPE: Civil
Case Name: United Biotech Private Limited vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: January 17, 2018
Date of the Judgment: January 17, 2018
Citation: M.A. NO.1764 OF 2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 19938 OF 2017
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Can a judgment passed by the Supreme Court be modified? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a modification application in the case of United Biotech Private Limited vs. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors. This case involves a modification to a previous judgment concerning civil appeals. The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha, considered the application and issued an order modifying specific paragraphs of the original judgment.
Case Background
The case involves a modification application (M.A. NO.1764 OF 2017) filed in a civil appeal (CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 19938 OF 2017) by United Biotech Private Limited against Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited and others. The application sought a modification of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated November 29, 2017, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001 and other connected matters. The applicant, United Biotech Private Limited, requested specific changes to the wording of certain paragraphs of the original judgment.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 29, 2017 | Original judgment passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4767-4769 of 2001 and other connected matters. |
| 2017 | M.A. NO.1764 OF 2017 filed by United Biotech Private Limited seeking modification of the judgment. |
| January 17, 2018 | Supreme Court issues order modifying the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The application for modification was heard by a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha. The Court considered the submissions made by the applicant’s counsel and determined that the requested modifications were necessary to accurately reflect the arguments and the outcome of the original appeals.
Legal Framework
This case primarily deals with the procedural aspect of modifying a judgment of the Supreme Court. There are no specific legal provisions cited in the order for the modification, but the inherent power of the court to correct errors in its judgments is implied.
Arguments
The applicant, United Biotech Private Limited, argued for specific modifications to paragraphs 13, 14, and 37 of the original judgment.
The applicant contended that the original judgment incorrectly attributed certain arguments and outcomes.
The respondent did not make any specific arguments against the modification application and the court accepted the submission of the applicant.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Modification of Paragraph 13 | The original wording “The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants in the appeals” should be replaced with “The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and respondents in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27309 of 2012.” |
| Modification of Paragraph 14 | The original wording “In reply, on behalf of the respondent” should be replaced with “In reply, on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and appellant in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27309 of 2012.” |
| Modification of Paragraph 37 | Paragraph 37 should be replaced with the following: “In the light of the above while answering the question arising in the manner indicated above, we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1851 of 2009 and allow the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27309 of 2012.” |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues in this order. The court considered the application for modification of the judgment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Modification of Paragraph 13 | The Court accepted the applicant’s submission and modified the paragraph as requested. |
| Modification of Paragraph 14 | The Court accepted the applicant’s submission and modified the paragraph as requested. |
| Modification of Paragraph 37 | The Court accepted the applicant’s submission and modified the paragraph as requested. |
Authorities
No cases or legal provisions were specifically cited in this order.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Modification of Paragraph 13 | The Court accepted the submission and modified the paragraph to replace “The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants in the appeals” with “The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and respondents in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27309 of 2012”. |
| Modification of Paragraph 14 | The Court accepted the submission and modified the paragraph to replace “In reply, on behalf of the respondent” with “In reply, on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and appellant in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27309 of 2012”. |
| Modification of Paragraph 37 | The Court accepted the submission and modified the paragraph to read: “In the light of the above while answering the question arising in the manner indicated above, we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1851 of 2009 and allow the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27309 of 2012.” |
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision to modify the judgment was based on the need to accurately reflect the arguments and the outcome of the original appeals. The modifications were made to ensure that the judgment correctly identified the parties making specific arguments and the final disposition of the appeals.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Record | 100% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 0% |
| Law | 100% |
Application for Modification Filed
Court Reviews Application
Court Finds Modifications Necessary
Judgment Modified
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court can modify its previous judgments to correct errors.
- ✓ Modifications are made to ensure that the judgment accurately reflects the arguments and outcomes of the case.
- ✓ This case highlights the importance of accuracy in judicial records and the court’s power to rectify errors.
Directions
The Court directed that the judgment of this Court dated 29th November, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 of 2001 and other connected matters is modified in the terms specified in the order.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There are no specific amendments to any statute that have been discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court has the power to modify its previous judgments to correct errors and ensure accuracy. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the modification application, amending specific paragraphs of its earlier judgment. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to accuracy and its inherent power to correct errors in its judgments.