Summary
The Supreme Court corrected a consent decree to provide ten per cent escalation of mesne profits every alternate year rather than every twelve months. An internal inconsistency and the contractual and procedural background showed an inadvertent recording error. The petitioner’s separate attempt to reopen the already final obligation to deliver the entire premises was rejected. Possession was directed within eight weeks, arrears recalculated on the corrected basis, and the existing Rs 1 lakh costs retained.
Issues
- Whether an apparent recording error in a consent decree could be corrected without reopening the settled possession obligation.
Held
- Consent decrees ordinarily bind the parties and should not be unilaterally rewritten. This does not prevent correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes to conform to the compromise, or challenges where the compromise is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. (¶ 18-20)
- The decree’s reference to twelve-month increases conflicted with its alternate-year examples. Read with the earlier decree and licence arrangements, this showed an inadvertent error; ten per cent escalation every alternate year reflected the intended compromise. (¶ 25-29)
- The obligation to deliver the entire 5,472 square feet had already attained finality. Alleged delivery to a third party did not fulfil delivery to the respondent, and the third party’s separate specific-performance claim remained pending. (¶¶ 21-24, 30)
- Possession was to be handed over within eight weeks. Deposited arrears were to be released, remaining arrears paid on the corrected alternate-year basis from 2009 until handover, and Rs 1 lakh costs paid. (¶ 31-32)
Result
Special leave petitions disposed of with limited correction to alternate-year escalation. Entire-premises possession direction and Rs 1 lakh costs maintained; handover required within eight weeks.