Pani Ram v. Union Of India

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion addresses miscellaneous and interlocutory applications in an appeal, including an application to substitute the legal representatives (LRs) of a deceased appellant and an application seeking correction in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 by replacing the name of an advocate.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court allowed the application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant and directed that the cause title be amended accordingly. It also allowed the application to correct paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 by replacing the advocate’s name from Mr. Siddhartha Iyer to Mr. Lalit Kumar. Consequently, the miscellaneous application and interlocutory application(s) were allowed.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED: The substitution application, the correction application relating to the advocate’s name in paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 17.12.2021, and the related miscellaneous and interlocutory application(s) were allowed.

The direct effect is that the appeal record will reflect the substituted legal representatives in the cause title and the corrected advocate name in the specified paragraph of the prior judgment. The order does not indicate any broader implications or creation of new precedent.