[2026:RJ-JP:27587] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 46/2025 URN: WMAP / 137U / 2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14081/2024 Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Sp-1- 2316, Riico Industrial Area, Ramchandrapura, Sitapura Extension, Jaipur- 302002 (Rajasthan), Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Vikas Jain Tijaria S/o Shri Ramesh Jain Tijaria Aged 53 Years. ----Applicant/Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance through Secretary, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Reserve Bank of Indian, through Chief General Manager, Near Rambagh Circle, Jaipur. 3. Bank of India, Laxmi Complex Building, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001, through its Branch Manager, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051, through its Managing Director and Executive Officer. ----Respondents/Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Archit Bohra Advocate with Ms. Sonali Kharra Advocate. For Respondents-Non Applicants : Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate. Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate. Mr. Shivam Sharma Advocate. Mr. Jyoti Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/07/2026 1. The present misc. application has been filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking rectification/modification of order [2026:RJ-JP:27587] (2 of 5) [WMAP-46/2025] dated 03.12.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14081/2024. While seeking modification, the petitioner- applicant has prayed for a relief the amount of Rs.7 Crores deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 31.08.2024 and the further amount of Rs.5 Crores tendered at the time of disposal of the writ petition along with application for One Time Settlement (OTS) be ordered to be refunded to the applicant in the event of failure of any settlement between the petitioner and the Respondent-Bank. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court recorded the offer made on behalf of the petitioner for submitting a fresh OTS proposal in terms of the RBI Circular dated 08.06.2023 along with a demand draft of Rs.5 Crores. However, according to the applicant, the latter part of the order directing Respondent No. 3-Bank to consider the deposited amount towards payment of the principal amount does not reflect the true intent of the parties and ought to be modified by directing that in case the OTS is not accepted, the deposited amount deserves to be refunded. Learned counsel relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Associates & Others vs. Punjab & Sindh Bank & Others (2009) 8 SCC 257, Pro Knits vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine 1864, M/s Kut Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No. 6016-6017 of 2019 decided on 20.08.2019 and Axis Bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited & Another, (2016) 12 SCC 18 as well as judgment of Madras High Court in Ride Master Rims Private [2026:RJ-JP:27587] (3 of 5) [WMAP-46/2025] Limited represented by its Director Mrs. R. Sivasakthi vs. State Bank of India, [Formerly State Bank of Travancore] represented by its Authorised Officer & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 5358. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 4. At the outset, it deserves notice that order dated 03.12.2024 is neither ambiguous, nor uncertain. The relevant part of the order clearly records the statement made on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter, unequivocally directs the respondent- Bank to consider the OTS proposal, subject to the petitioner adhering to the statement made before the Court. The order further specifically directs that the amount deposited shall be considered towards payment of the principal amount. The language employed in the order is plain, explicit and incapable of giving rise to any confusion. What the applicant now seeks is not clarification of any ambiguity, but substitution of the operative direction itself by incorporating an altogether different consequence, namely refund of amount deposited along with OTS application in the event of non-acceptance of the settlement proposal. 5. It is well settled that a Court cannot, in the guise of clarification, modification or rectification, alter the substance of a final judgment or rewrite the operative portion thereof. The power of recall or correction is confined to rectifying clerical, arithmetical or accidental errors, or to removing genuine ambiguity where the order is incapable of implementation. Such jurisdiction cannot be [2026:RJ-JP:27587] (4 of 5) [WMAP-46/2025] exercised to grant a substantive relief which was neither granted nor intended to be granted while deciding the matter finally. 6. Order dated 03.12.2024 was passed after hearing the parties and after recording the statement made on behalf of the petitioner. The Court consciously directed that the amount be considered towards payment of the principal amount. Had the Court intended that the amount be refunded in case the OTS failed, an express direction to that effect would have found place in the operative portion of the order. The absence of such a direction cannot now be supplied by way of a miscellaneous application. Acceptance of the prayer made by the applicant would amount to materially modifying the final judgment and granting a substantive relief, which was never permitted in the original order; such a course is impermissible in law. 7. This court also considered the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner-applicant and found that the facts of those judgments were altogether different. In none of the above judgment, while directing for consideration of OTS proposal, it was directed by the Court that the amount deposited along with application for OTS shall be adjusted in principal amount. In the present case, while passing order dated 03.12.2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court specifically observed that the such amount along with OTS proposal shall be considered towards principal amount. By accepting such specific conditions in order dated 03.12.2024, OTS application was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank both are under a legal obligation to abide by such directions given in the [2026:RJ-JP:27587] (5 of 5) [WMAP-46/2025] order. Hence, the judgments cited by the petitioner-applicant do not advance its case. 8. In the present case, no clerical error, accidental slip, omission or ambiguity in order dated 03.12.2024 has been pointed out by the applicant. The applicant merely seeks a different interpretation and different relief than what has been expressly granted by the Court. Such an exercise falls wholly outside the limited scope of a miscellaneous application. 9. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. All pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI/48/