- (1.) It is pointed out by Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, learned advocate for the respondents that there is a typographical error in recording the date of delivery of the judgment in MAT 425 of 2015 (Satish Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.). Submission is though the judgment was delivered on 17.8.2015, however, the date of the judgment has been recorded as 16.8.2015, which was Sunday.
(2.) We find that submission of the learned advocates is correct. Therefore, let the date of the judgment be read as 17.8.2015 instead of 16.8.2015, as recorded. Accordingly, the date of the judgment is corrected by us in red ink in the original copy of the judgment.
(3.) Since the judgment has been uploaded in the official server of the High Court, the learned Registrar General and the learned Registrar (Listing) are directed to rectify the said mistake in the official server of the High Court.;