Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 09 DRAT CK 6102

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) vs Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
CASE NUMBER
Regular Appeal No. 27/2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 321 words
2.

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. in Regular Appeal No.27/2024 for speaking to the minutes.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. would submit that in the order/judgment dated 28.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal, there are certain inadvertent clerical/typographical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions.

He would further point out following mistakes/errors requiring correction.

Sr.

No.

Para No.Details MentionedCorrection required
18The impugned order date is mentioned as 24.01.2026.It should be 24.04.2023
29

The date of auction is

mentioned as 28.08.202

It should be 28.08.2023
325

It is stated as a bid was

made by “the Appellant”

It should be Shakuntalam

Landcraft Pvt. Ltd./R-5.

430The sale certificate date is mentioned as 01.05.23024The sale certificate date should be 01.05.2024
532In the second paragraph, the date of the impugned order is mentioned as 24.04.2026It should be 24.04.2024
652The date of the impugned order is mentioned as 24.04.2026It should be 24.04.2024

2

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the other Respondents present would submit that the mistakes/errors pointed out are clerical/typographical in nature, therefore, the same may be corrected.

5.

It would not be out of place to note here that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 says that the Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

6.

In the considered view of this Appellate Tribunal, the errors pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5/Shakuntalam Landcraft Pvt. Ltd. are clerical/typographical in nature and accordingly, the same are hereby corrected by this order.

7.

The Private Secretary is directed to carry out the aforesaid corrections and upload the corrected order/judgment on the website.