Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : S.C.Agrawal
New Redbank Tea Company Private Limited
Versus
Kumkum Mittal
Case No. : 7032 of 1993
Date of Decision : 11/16/93
Advocates Appeared: Bey Jamshed : Bhushan Shanti : Chaudhury N.R. : Choudhary N.R. : Dewadi B.N. : Mukherjee Som Nath : Puri H.K. : Puri S.K. : Salve Harish N. : Sanghi G.L. : Sen A.K. : Sibal Kapil
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 230-A – Claim of compensation - Commercial interest – Jurisdiction - On behalf of respondent oral prayer was made before the learned Single Judge for being as a defendant in Extraordinary Suit said oral prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge by order view that it would be proper if a formal application was filed giving opportunity to all the parties to put forward their objections in specific terms - Thereafter respondent filed a written application for being added as a defendant in Extraordinary Suit said application of respondent was opposed by the defendants in the said suit but the plaintiffs had no objection to the said application being allowed - Application was rejected by the learned Single Judge by order - Learned Single Judge was of the view – Held, In instant case respondent admittedly, have no legal interest in the subject-matter of the dispute - All that they are claiming is specific performance of the agreement for sale of Tea Estate said to have been executed by and respondent - Said agreement was executed long after the institution - Moreover, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in relate to the validity of the agreement whereby the plaintiffs in that suit had transferred their controlling shares in appellants 1 and 2 in of appellant 3 and his group. In the said suit, the possession of Tea Estate is claimed only on the basis of control over appellant 1 which is a sub-lessee of the said tea estate. On the other hand Suit filed by respondent relates to specific performance of the agreement relating to the sale by and respondent Tea Estate. Respondent 11 cannot be said to be directly interested in the matter of validity of agreement executed by and respondent – Court are, therefore, unable to hold that the presence of respondent is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter in presence of respondent 11 in those proceedings, on the other hand, might cause prejudice to the rights of the appellants in the said suit. Moreover, both the suits are being tried together in accordance with the directions given by this court by its order - It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action – Appeal allowed
Judgment
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THIS appeal raises the question whether Terai Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., respondent 11 herein, is entitled to be impleaded as a party (defendant) in E.O. Suit No. 1 of 1985 pending in the Calcutta High court.
(3) THE subject-matter of the dispute between the parties is Dharanipur Tea Estate situate in District Jalpaiguri in West Bengal. One Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick (deceased) had obtained the lease of the land of the said tea estate from the government of West Bengal. The said lease was for a term of thirty years commencing from 27/10/1964. The New Red Bank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., appellant 1 owns the Red Bank Tea Estate and Surendra Nagar Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., appellant 2 herein, owns the Surendra Nagar Tea Estate. Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and his wife, Smt Reba Bhowmick, respondent 3 herein, were having controlling block of shares in both these companies.
(4) ON 16/03/1977, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick granted a sub-lease for the Dharanipur Tea Estate in favour of appellant 1. By virtue of his control over appellants 1 and 2, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick was the Managing Director of the said two companies and the three tea gardens were under his management. On 14/05/1981, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent 3 sold their controlling shares in appellants 1 and 2 to Robin Paul, appellant 3, and his group for valuable consideration and the charge of the three tea estates was handed over to appellant 3 and his group. In May 1984, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent No. 3 filed a suit (Title Suit No. 8 of 1984 against the appellants as well as respondents 4 to 10 and 12 in the court of Assistant District Judge, Jalpaiguri seeking for a declaration that the transfer of controlling interest of shares in appellants 1 and 2 are not valid and prayed for a declaration that Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick had all the legal and equitable rights, title and interest in respect of the Dharanipur Tea Estate and for restoration of possession. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the High court on 27/11/1984 under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent and it was renumbered as Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985.
(5) WHILE the said suit was pending, respondent 11 Filed a suit (Suit No. 240 of 1990 in the High court for specific performance of an agreement dated 15/01/1990 said to be executed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and M/s Dharanipur Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd., respondent 7 herein, in favour of respondent 11 for the sale of the Dharanipur Tea Estate. In the said suit respondent 11 filed applications for injunction as well as for appointment of receiver which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High court by order dated 1/04/1991. Respondent 11 filed appeals against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the said appeals were disposed of by a division bench of the High court by a consent order dated 2/08/1991 wherein it was recorded that the respondents (defendants in Suit No. 240 of 1990 had agreed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of plaintiff-appellants (respondent 11 herein). By the said order a receiver was appointed over the Dharanipur Tea Estate who was empowered to take possession of Dharanipur Tea Estate and allow respondent 11 to run the said tea estate until the Deed of Conveyance was executed and the Registering Authority was directed to register the Deed of Conveyance without insisting upon production of "no objection certificate" under Section 269-UC and a certificate under Section 230-A(1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the police authorities and other appropriate administrative authorities were directed to afford all facilities, cooperation and help for the purpose of carrying out of the said order. On the basis of the said order the Receiver on 3/08/1991 obtained symbolic possession of the Dharanipur Tea Estate and posted Mr Rungta as the authorised representative for respondent 11 to run, manage and look after the affairs of
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
