Kaluram Bapurao Thorat vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:11670
                                                                     902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc


                         Shabnoor
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                               WRIT PETITION NO.12691 OF 2022

                         Kaluram Bapurao Thorat                        ... Petitioner
                                    V/s.
           Digitally
                         The State of Maharashtra & Ors.               ... Respondents
           signed by
           SHABNOOR
  SHABNOOR AYUB
           PATHAN
  AYUB
  PATHAN   Date:
                                                           WITH
           2026.03.10
           15:28:11
           +0530
                                               WRIT PETITION NO.11907 OF 2019

                         Kaluram Bapurao Thorat                        ... Petitioner
                                    V/s.
                         The State of Maharashtra & Ors.               ... Respondents

                         Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar, for the Petitioner.
                         Mr. Shrivallabh S. Panchpor, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
                         Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP, for the State - Respondent in
                         WP/12691/2022.
                         Ms. M. S. Shrivastva, AGP, for the State - Respondent in
                         WP/11907/2019.


                                                        CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : MARCH 10, 2026 P.C.:

WRIT PETITION NO.12691 OF 2022

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The challenge raised in the present petition arises from an order passed by the Assistant Registrar issuing a corrigendum dated 16 August 2019. By this corrigendum, a rate of interest came to be inserted in the original recovery certificate. The petitioners

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

contend that such an exercise of power is wholly without authority of law. According to them, once the recovery certificate was issued, the proceedings had attained finality and the Assistant Registrar had become functus officio in respect of the matters decided therein. It is their submission that the corrigendum does not merely clarify or correct the certificate but in substance alters it by introducing a component of interest which was never part of the original determination. On this basis it is argued that the impugned corrigendum amounts to a review of the earlier order. Since the statute does not confer any power of review upon the Assistant Registrar, the corrigendum is alleged to be beyond jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside.

3. The respondent society has opposed the petition and has attempted to justify the corrigendum. It relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Rajamouli v. A. V. K. N. Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC 37. According to the society, when the recovery certificate was issued, the Assistant Registrar had examined the account extract produced by the society. That account extract, according to the society, clearly reflected the outstanding amount payable by the borrower and the amount that had accrued after 1 November 2014. On the strength of these documents, the Assistant Registrar issued the certificate specifying the principal amount and the dues payable after the said date. The society therefore submits that the order was passed after considering the account statement which itself reflected the liability inclusive of interest. From this circumstance the society seeks to contend that the entitlement to interest was always implicit in the order. According to the society,

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

what was omitted was only the specific mention of the rate of interest in the operative portion of the certificate. The omission, according to the society, was purely accidental in nature and amounted to nothing more than a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It is therefore argued that the Authority was competent to correct such an omission even though the statute does not expressly confer a power of review.

4. In addition to the above submission, the respondent society has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Surya Corporation and Another v. Competent Authority, The District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1890. The society submits that the said judgment recognizes the principle that an authority may correct an obvious clerical mistake in its order where the correction does not alter the substance of the adjudication but merely gives effect to what was already intended.

5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it becomes necessary to examine the original order issuing the recovery certificate dated 9 January 2015. A perusal of that order shows that the Authority had considered the material produced by the society. The documents referred to in the order include the promissory note executed by the borrower, the agreement governing the transaction and the account extract maintained by the society. After examining these documents, the Authority recorded a finding that the borrower had indeed obtained the loan from the society and that the liability to repay the principal amount was established. The Authority therefore directed payment

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

of the principal amount and also referred to the dues payable from 1 November 2014. However, one aspect of the order stands out clearly. The portion of the order which was meant to indicate the rate of interest was left blank. There is no entry in that space and the order does not contain any statement specifying the rate of interest or recording a determination in that regard.

6. This brings the Court to the question involved in the present matter. The issue is whether the blank portion relating to interest in the original order can be treated as a mere clerical or arithmetical mistake capable of correction by the Authority. The legal position in this regard is reasonably settled. Where a Court or Authority has in clear terms adjudicated the entitlement of a party to a particular relief, but due to a mistake the operative portion of the order does not accurately reflect that adjudication, such omission may be corrected as a clerical error. In such cases the correction does not change the substance of the decision. It only aligns the formal expression of the order with the actual adjudication already recorded in the body of the judgment.

7. The judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Rajamouli illustrates this principle. In that case the Court had examined the record and found that the entitlement of the decree holder to interest had been considered and accepted. Although the decree did not expressly mention the direction regarding interest, the Court found that the entitlement had already been determined in the judgment. The omission in the decree was therefore treated as a clerical error and the Court permitted correction of the decree so that it would properly reflect the judgment already delivered.

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

8. The present case, however, stands on a materially different footing. The order dated 9 January 2015 does not contain any adjudication on the question of interest. Paragraph 4 of the order merely refers to the documents relied upon by the society, including the account extract. The order records that these documents were examined for the purpose of establishing the loan transaction. But nowhere in the order has the Authority recorded a finding that the society was entitled to interest at any particular rate. The order does not even indicate that the question of interest was considered and accepted. In other words, the order contains no adjudication on that aspect.

9. Once this position becomes clear, the consequence follows naturally. The entitlement of the society to interest remained unexamined and undecided in the original proceedings. When an issue has not been adjudicated at all, the omission cannot be described as a clerical mistake. A clerical mistake presupposes the existence of a prior determination which has been inaccurately recorded. In the present case there was no such determination. Therefore, the subsequent insertion of a rate of interest through a corrigendum cannot be regarded as a mere correction. In substance, it introduces a new element into the recovery certificate. Such insertion has the effect of enlarging the liability of the borrower. It thus alters the merits of the matter rather than correcting a mechanical error.

10. The matter may also be looked at from another angle. The law recognizes a distinction between procedural review and substantive review. Procedural review arises where an order is

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

recalled because it was passed without giving a party an opportunity of hearing or in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such situations the authority merely restores the proceedings so that the matter can be heard properly. Substantive review, on the other hand, involves reconsideration of the merits of a decision and modification of the conclusions already reached. In the present case the corrigendum does not address any procedural defect. Instead, it introduces a new determination regarding interest which was never part of the earlier order. Such an exercise clearly falls within the category of substantive review. In the absence of an express statutory provision conferring a power of review, the Authority could not have undertaken such modification.

11. For these reasons the Court is satisfied that the corrigendum dated 16 August 2019 cannot be sustained in law. The Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to insert the rate of interest into the recovery certificate when the original order contained no adjudication on that issue. The impugned action therefore travels beyond the permissible limits of clerical correction and amounts to an impermissible review. Consequently, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

12. It is however necessary to clarify that the present judgment does not foreclose the rights of the respondent society altogether. If the society believes that it is entitled to claim interest under the governing documents or under the applicable provisions of law, it may pursue such remedy as is available to it in accordance with law. It does not prevent the society from initiating appropriate

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

proceedings, if the law otherwise permits such course.

13. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

WRIT PETITION NO.11907 OF 2019

15. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

16. The present petition challenges an order of attachment. The attachment has been issued on the basis of the interest component that was introduced through the corrigendum referred to earlier. The attachment order therefore rests entirely upon the correctness of that corrigendum.

17. In Writ Petition No. 12691 of 2022 this Court has already set aside the corrigendum dated 16 August 2019. Once that corrigendum is removed, the foundation upon which the attachment order was issued disappears. An order of attachment which is based upon a liability created through an invalid corrigendum cannot be permitted to continue. The attachment therefore loses its legal basis and cannot survive.

18. For these reasons Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

19. However, considering the request made on behalf of the respondent society and in order to enable it to examine its legal remedies, it is directed that the effect and operation of the present judgment shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks from

902-wp-12691-2022 with conected.doc

today.

20. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)