Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Nuclear Power Corporation, Appellant v. Gajraj Singh and another etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6066-67 of 1993 with C.A. Nos. 6068 to 6081 of 1993
Decided on 17-1-1995.
Interested Persons - Appeals - Limitation - High Court's Dismissal - Remittal and Disposal by High Court
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed appeals in the High Court against awards passed by the reference Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of delay, as they were barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation was not justified. The order of the High Court was set aside, and the appeals were remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits. The High Court was requested to allow the appellants to present evidence and for the respondents to contest it. The High Court may call for a fresh finding from the reference Court if necessary.
Issues: Dismissal of appeals by High Court based on limitation, entitlement of appellants to file appeals, and the need for disposal of appeals on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court should not dismiss appeals solely on the ground of delay if the appellants were not properly impleaded as respondents and notice was not given in the reference Court. The appeals should be disposed of on merits, allowing both parties to present evidence and contest it.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the interim stay granted by the Court would continue until the disposal of the appeals by the High Court.
JUDGMENT
The question whether the appellant is an interested person or not is now covered by the majority Judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (dead) by LRs. (1994) 7 JT (SC) 304, wherein it was held that they are interested persons. However, it was directed that they are entitled to file appeals against the awards passed by the reference Court. Though the appeals have been filed in the High Court, the High Court dismissed them solely on the ground of delay since by that date they were barred by limitation. The High Court should not have dismissed the appeals as the appellants were not eo nominee impleaded as respondents nor notice was given in the reference Court. We think that dismissal of the appeals as having barred by limitation is not justified. The order of the High Court is set aside accordingly. The appeals are remitted to the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeals on merits. It is open to the appellants to place such of the evidence which they seek to rely on before the High Court and it is open to the respondents also to contest the same. If necessary, the High Court may call for a fresh finding from the reference Court and then to dispose of appeals according to law.
2. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
3. Where awards were not already executed, the interim stay granted by this Court would continue till the disposal of the appeals by the High Court.
Appeals allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1606
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
