Supreme Court: It is impermissible to recall the judgment or order once it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

 The High Court also noted in

the impugned order that the Personal Assistant

when visited with a show-cause notice had tendered

unqualified apology and had stated that it was an

inadvertent error which was on account of said

employee being in deep grief due to the sudden

demise of his maternal uncle and as such accepting

the said unconditional apology tendered by the

Court Master, the order of granting the bail came

to be reversed or recalled.

6. At this juncture, we deem it apposite to note

Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

which clearly mandates that once the judgment or

order is signed, no alternation or review of the

same is permissible except to correct a clerical

or arithmetical error. In the instant case, there

being no clerical or arithmetical error which had

crept in, yet the High Court recalled the earlier

order granted bail by impugned order and it was

not justified in undertaking to recall the order

dated 27.08.2025 by the impugned order 30.08.2025.

In other words, the order granting bail has been

reversed or recalled by the impugned order which

is impermissible in law and as same would not be

sustainable even for a moment. Hence, same is set

aside.

Ratio: The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order recalling its earlier order, which had granted bail to the accused, noting that it is impermissible to recall the judgment or order once it is signed except to correct clerical or arithmetical error.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.105 OF 2026

RAMBALI SAHNI  Vs  STATE OF BIHAR 

Dated: JANUARY 07, 2026.

Print Page

Whether high court can modify original order on Notes for speaking minutes?

 Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and considering the impugned order passed by the High Court passed below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes", we are of the opinion that while passing such order below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes", the High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in regard to the scope of deciding a "Note for speaking to the Minutes". A "Note for speaking to Minutes" is required to be entertained only for the limited purpose of correcting a typographical error or an error through oversight, which may have crept in while transcribing the original order. Once, the judgment/order is pronounced and if any party to the same wants any rectification of any typographical error and any clerical mistake regarding the date or number, such a party may apply to the concerned Court for correcting such an error in the judgment/order. However, a "Note for speaking to the Minutes" cannot be considered at par with a review application or in a given case, with an application for clarification/modification of an order. A "Note for speaking to the Minutes" can never be considered to be an application of such a nature. While passing the impugned order below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes", the High Court has virtually modified its original order passed in First Appeal. While passing the impugned order, the High Court has given further directions as if the High Court is passing the order on an application for clarification/modification. Therefore, such a course was not open to the High Court while deciding a "Note for speaking to the Minutes". Since, the High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in regard to the scope of deciding a "Note for speaking to the Minutes", we have no option but to set aside the impugned order passed below the "Note for speaking to the Minutes".

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 12088-12089 of 2018 

Decided On: 14.12.2018

Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh Vs. Brijlal Tibrewal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation:(2019) 2 SCC 684

Print Page

Whether clerical error can be corrected after delay of twenty five years?

 We are also not satisfied with the delay by the Respondents in making a claim Under Section 87 of the Act. The contention of the Respondents is that since there is no time limit specified for filing a claim petition, they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularly for correcting a clerical error.

59. It is now well settled that where no time-limit is specified, whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period. In Collector v. P. Mangamma MANU/SC/0170/2003 : (2003) 4 SCC 488 at page 491 it was held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:

A reasonable period would depend upon the factual circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any empirical formula to determine that question. The court/authority considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and relevant factors to decide that question.

In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha MANU/SC/0406/1969 : (1969) 2 SCC 187 it was observed that when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the power is to be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which was sought to be varied.........". Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or immoderate on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)

Decided On: 01.05.2018

Telangana Housing Board  Vs. Azamunnisa Begum (died) thru. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 346.

Print Page