Skip to content


Ram Sumiran and ors. Vs. D.D.C. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 41 of 1980
Judge
Reported inII(1985)ACC583; AIR1985SC606; (1985)1SCC431; 1985(17)LC551(SC)
AppellantRam Sumiran and ors.
RespondentD.D.C. and ors.
Appellant Advocate Urmila Kapoor, Adv
Respondent Advocate Shakil Ahmed Syed, Adv.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated May 3, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 1980 of 1975--
Excerpt:
- central excise act, 1944. section 4(4)(d)(ii): [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] assessable value held, loading charges collected by assessee has to be treated as cum-duty price. assessee is entitled to the benefit of abatement for excise duty payable on such loading charges. - 5 on record because the appellants are admittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time......whole against respondents nos. 4 and 5 since it abated against respondent no. 5 on account of the legal representatives of respondent no. 5 not having been brought on record within a period of 90 days after the death of respondent no. 5 which occurred on 21-11-1976. it is true that no steps were taken by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 5 on record for about 6 years even though according to respondent no. 4 the appellants knew about the death of respondent no. 5. but merely because no application was made by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 5 on record we do not think that in the circumstances of the present case that would be a valid ground for refusing to grant the application of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only ground on which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition is that it has abated as a whole against Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 since it abated against Respondent No. 5 on account of the legal representatives of Respondent No. 5 not having been brought on record within a period of 90 days after the death of respondent No. 5 which occurred on 21-11-1976. It is true that no steps were taken by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record for about 6 years even though according to respondent No. 4 the appellants knew about the death of respondent No. 5. But merely because no application was made by the appellants for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record we do not think that in the circumstances of the present case that would be a valid ground for refusing to grant the application of the appellants for setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record because the appellants are admittedly from the rural area and in a country like ours where there is so much poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, it would not be fair to presume that everyone knows that on death of a respondent, the legal representatives have to be brought on record within a certain time. The ends of justice require that the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 should have been granted. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the abatement, if any, shall be set aside, and the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 5 shall be brought on record and the writ petition shall be remanded to the high Court for disposal according to law. We may make it clear that in making this order we must not be presumed to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy raised in the writ petition. It will be for the High Court to decide the writ petition according to law. We would request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition at a very early date and as far as possible, before the end of February, 1985, The ex parte order of stay made by us will stand vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //