In a brief but eventful in-chamber hearing on 13 November 2025, the Supreme Court took up two connected petitions filed by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). The proceedings-conducted before Justice Aravind Kumar-largely revolved around procedural lapses, delays, and the need to bring legal heirs on record. Though the hearing was short, the judge’s pointed remarks indicated that the Court expects parties to move faster in long-pending matters.
Background
The dispute arises from two Special Leave Petitions (SLP Nos. 29455/2024 and 31072/2024), in which UPSRTC has challenged earlier orders passed against it. With multiple respondents and some deaths recorded during the pendency of the litigation, the petitioners were required to substitute the deceased parties with their legal representatives-an essential step to keep the appeal alive.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Quashes Caste-Probe Orders Against Retired Headmaster, Calls Civil Rights Cell
However, delays occurred. The petitioners sought condonation for the late filing and requested permission to add documents and complete procedural formalities. The respondents, represented by different counsel, opposed anything that could drag the matter further.
As one lawyer quietly said outside the courtroom corridor, “These transport matters often stretch for years because of paperwork, not the actual dispute.”
Court’s Observations
During the short in-chamber session, Justice Aravind Kumar displayed a pragmatic approach. He noted that the delay, although not ideal, could be condoned to allow the matter to progress. “The bench observed, ‘Let the cause not fail merely due to procedural delay,’” according to a lawyer present during the hearing.
Read also: Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe into Arnav Duggal’s Mysterious Death After Flagging Severe
The Court first addressed the abatement issue-an automatic lapse that occurs when a party dies and no substitution is made within the prescribed time. In this case, the abatement had already set in with respect to multiple respondents. The judge decided to set aside the abatement, giving the petitioners another opportunity to continue the matter properly.
The Court then allowed the application for substitution but not without a small consequence. “The bench observed, ‘Substitution is permitted, but subject to cost of Rs. 1000 to SCAORA,’” signalling that parties must adhere to timelines.
Justice Kumar also referred to several unserved respondents. Since notices had not been properly delivered to respondent numbers 2, 4, and 9, the Court extended the time by two more weeks to complete service. Additionally, notices were ordered to be issued to the legal representatives of deceased respondent numbers 3 and 8-another procedural step that the petitioners must now finish.
Read also: Gauhati High Court Partly Allows Appeals, Grants Only Retrospective Salary Benefits to Former
Decision
By the end of the hearing, the Supreme Court passed a clear set of directions:
- Delay was condoned, allowing the petitions to proceed.
- Abatement was set aside, reopening the case against deceased respondents.
- Substitution of parties was allowed, but only after deposit of Rs. 1000 as cost payable to SCAORA.
- Two weeks were granted to complete service on unserved respondents.
- Notices were issued to legal heirs of deceased respondents 3 and 8.
- For the connected petition (SLP 31072/2024), the Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the appropriate bench for further hearing.
Read also: Bombay High Court Faults EPFO’s Recovery Move, Says Due Process Skipped in Nashik Sugar Factory
With this, the Court concluded the proceedings for the day, keeping the focus strictly on procedural compliance rather than the merits of the underlying dispute.
Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Om Saran Gupta & Ors.
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 29455/2024 with SLP(C) No. 31072/2024
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Decision Date: 13 November 2025
