A proceeding against a proprietorship’s business name is not a nullity upon the proprietor’s death.

Zee Entertainment instituted a broadcasting petition against Ganpati Digital Network, the business name under which its interconnection agreement had been executed.

The proprietor, Viresh Tomar, had died before the petition was filed.

After service, his son, Vishant Tomar, appeared, filed a reply and claimed to be the concern’s sole proprietor; later, his counsel disputed that he was the sole proprietor.

Zee applied under Section 16 of the TRAI Act to amend the memo of parties and add Viresh Tomar’s legal representatives.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that a proceeding instituted against a person who had already died was a nullity that could not be cured by substitution.

Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits proceedings against a person in the name under which that person carries on business; the Tribunal treated the business name as distinct from the deceased proprietor personally for the purpose of this proceeding.

The Tribunal also considered the principle advanced by the respondents that a proceeding instituted against a sole defendant who died before institution is a nullity and cannot be revived by later substitution.

The application was brought under Section 16 of the TRAI Act.

The Tribunal found that the petition had been brought against Ganpati Digital Network—the business name in which the interconnection agreement was made and business conducted—not against Viresh Tomar as an individual.

It considered the petitioner’s asserted bona fide belief, based on the continuing business relationship and use of the same email address, as well as Vishant Tomar’s initial reply and verification claiming that he was the sole proprietor.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal rejected the characterization of the petition as one instituted against a dead person and concluded that adding the legal representatives would enable just and equitable adjudication.

It held that fresh service on the added respondents was unnecessary because service had already been effected through police mode and Vishant Tomar had appeared, but permitted the added respondents to file replies within four weeks, with a replication to follow within two weeks.

The matter was listed for further hearing on 10 December 2026, and the maintainability issue concerning the petition’s alleged institution against a deceased person was disposed of.