Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Ajanta LLP Vs. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. & Another - (Supreme Court) (04 Feb 2022)

Consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake

MANU/SC/0143/2022

Civil

Present appeal is against impugned judgment passed by High Court, dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the CPC”) seeking modification of the judgment.

The Appellant submitted that, the High Court committed an error in dismissing the Application by considering the same to have been filed only under Section 152 of the CPC. It was submitted that, the High Court ought to have considered the Application by referring to Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The learned Senior Counsel argued that misunderstanding between the parties is a valid ground to interfere with a consent decree.

A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. The Court in exercise of its inherent power may rectify the consent decree to ensure that, it is free from clerical or arithmetical errors so as to bring it in conformity with the terms of the compromise. The Court can entertain an Application under Section 151 of the CPC for alterations/ modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding.

There is no allegation either of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Respondent. Present Court is unable to agree with the Appellant that there was a mistake committed while entering into a settlement agreement due to misunderstanding.

Correspondence between the advocates for the parties who are experts in law would show that there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity giving rise to any misunderstanding. Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree. The judgment of the High Court is upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CONSENT DECREE   ALTERATION   MISTAKE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved