The Supreme Court in Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd. Versus Beant Singh, dated 17.02.21, reiterated that “It is well settled that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting an end to further litigation between the parties. Resultantly, this Court has held that it would be slow to unilaterally interfere in, modify, substitute or modulate the terms of a consent decree, unless it is done with the revised consent of all the parties      (Gupta   Steel   Industries  v.  Jolly   Steel Industries   Pvt.   Ltd.   &   anr., (1996)   11   SCC   678;  Suvaran Rajaram   Bandekar  &   ors.  v.  Narayan   R.   Bandekar  &   ors., (1996) 10 SCC 255).  19. However, this formulation is far from absolute and does not apply as a blanket rule in all cases. This Court, in Byram Pestonji 10 Gariwala  v.  Union Bank of India & ors., (1992) 1 SCC 31, has held that a consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the   compromise   was   vitiated   by   fraud,   misrepresentation,   or mistake. Further, this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers may also unilaterally rectify a consent decree suffering from clerical or arithmetical errors, so as to make it conform with the terms of the compromise.”