UNION OF INDIA versus GHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 28-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
GHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWAN! 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1994 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Conservation of Foreign &change and Prevention of Smuggling Ac-
tivities Act, 197 4 : 
Detention order-Challenge-Death of detenue-Substitution- applica-
tion filed long after period of limitation-Pleading that the appeal does not 
abate since heirs of deceased were already on record in connected ap-
peals-Connected appeals arising out of different cause of action-Substitu-
tion rejected and appeal held abated-Doctrine of representation of the estate 
D of a deceased party held inapplicable. 
An order of detention was passed against the respondent under 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act, 1974. In view of the said detention order three notices were issued, one 
against the respondent and two against his sons nnder section 6 of the 
E Smugglars and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (F orefeiture of Property) 
Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The respondent challenged the detention order 
before the Bombay High Court but died during the pendency of the case 
and the High Court quashed the detention order. No application for 
setting aside the abatement was made. 
F 
In the application for substitution, filed after the period of limita-
tion, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the other 
appeals have also been preferred against quashing of notices issued under 
SAFEMA to the sons of respondent and in such appeals, the question of 
the validity of detention order also arises for determination, there is no 
G question of abatement of the instant appeal because in other appeals some 
of the heirs of respondents are already on record. Reliance was placed 
upon the decision in Mahabir Prasad v. !age Ram & Ors., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 
301. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
58 
..
.... 
-
U.0.1. v. G.K. GOW AN! 
59 
HELD : In the Mahabir Prasad's case, the question of abatement of A 
a proceeding was considered where, in the same llrOceeding one of the heirs 
of a deceased party was already on record. The said decision does not 
reiate to abatement of a different proceeding which is independent of the 
other proceedings where an heir in his personal capacity is a party. In the 
aforesaid circumstances, the application for substitution which is other· 
wise hopelessly time barred is rejected. Consequently, this appeal abates. 
[61-8, C, DJ 
Mahabir Prasad v. !age Ram & Ors., (1991) 3 S.CR. 301, held 
inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
540 of 1982. 
From the Judgment and order dated 23.2.81 of the Bombay High 
Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 1320/1975. 
S. Rajappa for the Appellant. 
Anil B. Divan, S. Ganesh, M.A. Rana and Rajiv Tyagi for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The respondent Ghamandiram Kewalji Gowani was detained under 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) in 1974. The said order of 
detention was challenged by the son of the detenue Shri Tej Raj before the 
Bombay High Court and after considering the grounds of detention, the 
Bombay High Court quashed the detention order by Judgment dated 
November 1, 1974. Sometime in June, 1975 during the period of emergency 
declared under the Constitution, another detention order was passed 
against the said Ghamandiram. The se~ond detention order was also 
. challenged in the Bombay High Court. By an interim order dated March 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
10, 1976, the Bombay High Court held that the detenue was entitled to G 
challenge the grounds for detention. and the petition presented before the 
High Court for such challenge was maintainable. On the revocation of the . 
emergency, the detenue was released but the chalienge· to the detention 
order, was pursued and ultimately by the Judgment and Order dated 
February 23, 1981, the Bombay High Court set aside and quashed the 
second detention order. 
H 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
The instant appeal arises out of such judgment of the Bombay High 
Court dated February 23, 1881 quashing the second detention order. 
During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent Ghamandirarn died on 
February 2, 1983. No application for substitution of the heirs of the legal 
.... 
representatives of the said deceased respondent Ghamandiram was made 
B within the period of limitation. No application for setting aside abatement 
after cond

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.