Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Security Printing Corporation Of India ... vs Vijay D. Kasbe on 13 August, 2021
Author: V. Ramasubramanian
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian
1
ITEM NO.33 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1891-1900/2019
SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
VIJAY D. KASBE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 356/2020 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION)
Date : 13-08-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
[IN CHAMBER]
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR
Mr. Supravo Dey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR
Mr. Sideshwar Namdev Biradar, Adv.
Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
It is stated by learned counsel on both sides that Respondent No. 161 is the same person as Respondent No. 30 and he is already served. Therefore, service on Respondent No. 161 should be treated to be complete. Insofar as Respondent Nos. 26 and 193 are concerned, it is stated that they are not contesting the case. Therefore, no further steps are required as against them. Signature Not Verified
The respondents in SLP (C) No. 1896 and 1900 of 2019 have come Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2021.08.14 12:50:18 IST Reason: up with Applications (i) for substitution to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.14 in the former 2 and (ii) for substitution to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in the latter.
Actually, it is the obligation on the part of the petitioner to have the legal representatives of any deceased respondent substituted. If no substitution is done, the special leave petition will abate as against the deceased respondents.
Despite knowing its consequences, the petitioner opposes the prayer for substitution, on the ground that these respondents were dead even when the matter was before the High Court/Central Administrative Tribunal. If that is so, the petitioner ought not have impleaded them as parties at all.
Whatever it be, since the petitioner is prepared to take the consequences of the special leave petition(s) getting abated against the deceased respondents, the applications for substitution filed by the respondents are dismissed at the risk of the petitioner. It is recorded that the special leave petition Nos.1896 of 2019 has abated as against Respondent No.14 and the special leave petition (c) No. 1900 of 2019 stands abated as against Respondent Nos. 8 to 10.
Since service is complete, let the matter be listed before the appropriate Court.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)