[2018] 6 S.C.R. 899 899 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. A v. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018) MARCH 28, 2018 B [RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Judgments/Orders – Typographic mistake – Clarification in Judgment delivered on 27th March 2018 and reported in C [2018] 6 SCR 861 – Clarification given pursuant to submission made by appellant – Para 52 of the said Judgment (operative portion) accordingly substituted. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018. D From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 4676 of 2015 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 3331 and 3332 of 2018. E Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gautam Talukdar, Mishra Saurabh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was passed by F MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. After pronouncement of the judgment learned counsel for the appellant while mentioning in the court drew the attention of the Court to typographic mistake, that while allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018, the dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited is not Gmentioned in the said judgment, therefore, the same is to be corrected. On verification, we find that the said submission is justified. Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be substituted by the following: H 899

900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A Accordingly, it is made clear that Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in B the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the judgment. Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of. C D E F G H

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 899 899 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, UJJAIN & ANR. A v. BVG INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018) MARCH 28, 2018 B [RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] Judgments/Orders – Typographic mistake – Clarification in Judgment delivered on 27th March 2018 and reported in C [2018] 6 SCR 861 – Clarification given pursuant to submission made by appellant – Para 52 of the said Judgment (operative portion) accordingly substituted. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3330 of 2018. D From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2016 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W. P. No. 4676 of 2015 WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 3331 and 3332 of 2018. E Devadatt Kamat, Rajesh Inamdar, Aditya Bhat, Gautam Talukdar, Mishra Saurabh, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was passed by F MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. After pronouncement of the judgment learned counsel for the appellant while mentioning in the court drew the attention of the Court to typographic mistake, that while allowing Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018, the dismissal of the Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited is not Gmentioned in the said judgment, therefore, the same is to be corrected. On verification, we find that the said submission is justified. Hence, Para 52 of the judgment (operative portion) is to be substituted by the following: H 899

900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A Accordingly, it is made clear that Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 of 2018 and 3331 of 2018 are allowed. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018 filed by BVG India Limited stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The aforementioned clarification shall be noted by the Registry in B the main judgment and necessary corrections may be effected in the judgment. Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of. C D E F G H