The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Agro Industries DevelopmentCorporation Limited, Agro House,Tiruvika Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai-32 v. V.T. Lakshmipathy & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 30..10..2008C O R A MThe Honourable Mr. A.K. Ganguly, Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr. Justice P. JyothimaniWrit Appeal No.1210 of 2008The Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Agro Industries DevelopmentCorporation Limited, Agro House,Tiruvika Industrial Estate,Guindy, Chennai-32... Appellant/Respondent versus1.V.T. Lakshmipathy2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary,Agriculture Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9... Respondents- - - - -Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentagainst the order of a learned single Judge of this Courtdated 14.3.2008 made in W.P. No.42084 of 2002. Petitionfiled under Article 226 of the constitution of India, toissue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent to paysubsistence allowance from 19.5.2008, onwards pursuant tothe order dated 11.7.2002 in W.P.No.9250/95.- - - - - For Appellant : Mr. A. ShanmugamFor Respondent-2 : Mr. J. Raja Kalifulla, Govt. PleaderJ U D G M E N T( Delivered by The Honourable the Chief Justice )Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has beenfiled by the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Agro Industries https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Corporation Limited impugning an order dated 14.3.2008passed by a learned Judge of the writ court. In the said order, thelearned Judge of the writ court has directed the present appellant topay an amount of Rs.10,06,665/- to the first respondent/writpetitioner by way of ex gratia payment, retrenchment compensation,earned leave reimbursement and gratuity payment. The said paymenthas been directed to be made on the basis of a memo of calculationwhich was filed by the writ petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant before us submits that noopportunity was given to the appellant to controvert the saidcalculation and a copy of the said memo was also not served on him. 3. We find that in the body of the order itself, the learnedJudge has recorded the following statement of fact :-"Inspite of filing of above memo of calculation beforethis Court, the quantum is not disputed by therespondents."Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said statement offact was incorrectly recorded by the learned Judge.4. We are unable to entertain such an argument in this appealcourt. Learned counsel for the appellant who is appearing before ussubmits that he was not before the learned Judge of the writ court.Therefore, by changing the counsel, the appellant is taking a standwhich is contrary to what is recorded by the learned Judge of thewrit court in the order appealed against. 5. It is well settled when the facts recorded in a judgment of acourt are disputed as incorrectly recorded, the proper procedure isnot to file an appeal against the judgment, but to immediately filean affidavit before the Court which has made the alleged incorrectrecording and bring the same to the notice of the same learned Judgetill it is fresh in judicial mind. Please see the judgment ofSupreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR1982 SC 1249). The relevant passage at paragraph-4, page 1251, isextracted: -" Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. Theyare not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged intothe arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as merecounters in the game of litigation" (Per LordAtkinson in Somasundaram v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC136). We are bound to accept the statement of theJudges recorded in their judgment, as to whattranspired in court. We cannot allow the statement ofthe Judges to be contradicted by statements at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judgessay in their judgment that something was done, saidor admitted before them, that has to be the last wordon the subject. The principle is well settled thatstatements of fact as to what transpired at thehearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, areconclusive of the facts so stated, and no one cancontradict such statements by affidavit or otherevidence. If a party thinks that the happenings incourt have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it isincumbent upon the party, while the matter is stillfresh in the minds of the Judges, to call theattention of the very Judges, who have made therecord to the fact that the statement made withregard to his conduct was a statement that had beenmade in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v.Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30). That is the only way tohave the record corrected. If no such step is taken,the matter must necessarily end there."6. The aforesaid principles have been repeatedly affirmed by theSupreme Court in several judgments. Reference may be made toparagraph 12 of Central Bank of India v. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhireported in AIR 2003 SC 3028. The relevant findings in paragraph-12(page 3030) run as follows: -"Statements of fact as to what transpired atthe hearing recorded in the judgment of theCourt, are conclusive of the facts so statedand no one can contradict such statements byaffidavit or other evidence. If a party thinksthat the happenings in Court have been wronglyrecorded in a judgment, it is incumbent uponthe part, while the matter is still fresh inthe minds of Judges, to call the attention ofthe very Judges who have made the record. Thatis the only way to have the record corrected.If no such is taken, the matter mustnecessarily end there. It is not open to aparty to contend before this Court to thecontrary."7. Sitting in appeal court, it is difficult for us to appreciatethe aforesaid stand taken by the appellant, that too by changingtheir lawyer. It is obviously open to the appellant to engage alawyer of their choice, but the stand which has been taken beforethis Court cannot be appreciated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. We, therefore, dismiss the writ appeal for the aforesaidreason, giving liberty to the appellant to take the steps whichshould be taken in such matters and which have been indicated hereinabove. If such a step is taken it is entirely open to the learnedJudge to decide on the same and the matter is left to the discretionof His Lordship. We do not say anything on that. There shall be noorder as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ab/pvTo1. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Agro House, Tiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32.+ 1 CC to Mr.A.Shanmugam, Advocate, SR.NO.60139. Writ Appeal No.1210 of 2008SSN [CO]RB 6/11/2008