$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 94/2024 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manoj, Adv. versus NARENDER KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms. Shreya Jetly, Adv. for R-2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV O R D E R % 10.12.2025 1. The present matter comes up pursuant to an Office Note stating that two orders of the same date i.e. 28.11.2025 in relation to the LPA 94/2024 has been signed by the Bench and sent in original, out of which first order containing 11 paragraphs as received by the Registry on 29.11.2025 has been sent to Respondent No.1 by way of registered post and another order of the same date containing 12 paragraphs has also been received by the Registry on 04.12.2025. 2. On query being put to the Court staff, it has come to our notice that the first order was signed by us and sent to the Restorer, who sent the same directly to the Registry, without prior intention to the Private Secretary or Stenographer so as to enable him to upload the same. 3. Hence, when the record relating to uploading of the order was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:13:13 checked, by the concerned PA, she thought that the order dated 28.11.2025 has not been signed by the Court and, therefore, another printout was taken and sent to us for signatures. 4. Finding requirement of some amendments, the Presiding Judge carried out certain improvement in Para nos. 6 and 7, being oblivious of the fact that the order has already been signed and sent to the Registry and consequently, the another order containing 12 paragraphs (instead of 11 paragraphs), came to be finalized and signed by us. 5. We hereby note that the substance of the second order, including the concluding Para nos. 9 to 12 are exactly identical to Para Nos. 8 to 11 of the first order. 6. However, there are some cosmetic changes qua Para No. 6 and 7 in the first order. We hereby direct that the first order be treated as cancelled and the second order, which has been signed and uploaded on the website, be treated to be the correct/final order. 7. In case, a copy of the order, has been sent to Respondent No. 1, the same be treated as cancelled and a copy of the final order, which has been uploaded in the website be sent to Respondent No. 1. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Appellant points out that there are two typographical error in Para nos. 4 and 7 of the second order inasmuch as in third line of Para no. 4, the date of order should have been 29.08.2023 in place of 15.12.2023 and in the penultimate line of Para no. 7, the expression ‘Respondent’ No. 1’ should have been inscribed in place of ‘Appellant’. 9. Finding the inadvertent error pointed out by the Appellant’s counsel, the same are also ordered to be corrected. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:13:13 10. The date mentioned in third line no. 3 of Para No. 4 shall be read as ‘29.08.2023’ and the expression ‘Appellant’ shall stand substituted by the expression ‘Respondent no. 1’ in the penultimate line of Para No. 7. 11. Ordered accordingly. DINESH MEHTA, J VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J DECEMBER 10, 2025/ps This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:13:13