{"id":196384,"date":"1964-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964"},"modified":"2015-03-28T09:52:24","modified_gmt":"2015-03-28T04:22:24","slug":"rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","title":{"rendered":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1889, \t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 760<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRUP CHAND GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAGHUVANSHI PRIVATE LIMITED &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/04\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR 1889\t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 760\n CITATOR INFO :\n APL\t    1988 SC1470\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nDecree-Collusion-Ingredients  of collusion-A party who\tneed\nnot  be\t impleaded  was not  impleaded-Does  not  constitute\ncollusion-Two limited companies-All directors common Suit by\none-Other does not defend-Does not make the suit collusive.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent  No. 2 is the lessee of Respondent No. 1 and\t the\nappellant  is the sub-lessee.  Both the respondents  Nos.  1\nand  2 had the same directors.\tRespondent No. 1  brought  a\nsuit  against  respondent No. 2 for eviction  in  which\t the\nappellant  was\tnot  impleaded as  a  party.   By  agreement\nbetween\t the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that  suit\t was\nnot  defended and ex-parte decree was obtained in favour  of\nrespondent No. 1. By virtue of this decree the appellant  as\na  sub-lessee of respondent No. 2 became a  tresspasser\t and\nhad no right to remain on the land.  To avoid this situation\nthe  appellant filed a suit to set aside the decree  on\t the\nground\tthat it was obtained by collusion.  The Trial  Judge\naccepted  his  contention  and gave  a\tdirection  that\t the\nappellant   still  remained  a\ttenant\tand  directing\t the\ndefendants  in that suit from taking any steps in  execution\nof the ex-parte decree.\t On appeal the trial Court's  decree\nwas  set aside on the ground that the present appellant\t had\nfailed\tto  prove  that the  ex-parte  decree  was  obtained\ncollusively.\nBefore\tthis  Court the same contentions as  in\t the  courts\nbelow were raised.\nHeld:  (i) The mere fact that the defendant agreed with\t the\nplaintiff  that if a suit is brought he would not defend  it\nwould  not necessarily prove collusion.\t It is only if\tthis\nagreement  is done improperly in the sense that a  dishonest\npurpose was intended to be achieved that they can be said to\nhave colluded.\nScott  v. Scott. 1913 Law Reports (Probate Division) 52\t and\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1010762\/\">Nagubai\t Ammal &amp; Ors. v. B. Shamma Rao,<\/a> [1956]\tS.C.R.\t451,\nreferred  to.\n(ii) The law allows a landlord to institute a suit against\na lessee  for  the possession of the land on the basis of  a\nvalid notification without impleading the sub-lessee and the\ndecree in such suit would bind the sub-lessee and hence\t the\nsuit  instituted  by respondent No. 1 in  the  present\tcase\ncannot be said to have constituted an improper act.\n(iii)\t  The omission of the respondent No. 2 to defend the\nearlier suit was not also an improper act because even if it\nhad a good defence it was not bound to take it.\n(iv) Even  if  the appellant was a Thika tenant\t within\t the\nmeaning\t of the Calcutta Thika Tenants Act, 1949,  it  would\nhave protected him against eviction by respondent No. 2\t but\nIt  would not have given protection against the eviction  by\nrespondent No. 1 because the Act was designed to protect the\nThika  Tenant  from eviction by the landlord  only  and\t not\nagainst eviction from any other source.\n761\nShamsuddin  Ahmad v. Dinanath Mullick, Appeal from  original\ndecree No. 123 of 1957, decided on 13-8-59.\n(v)  The  respondents  Nos. 1 and 2 are two  distinct  legal\nentitles  and  therefore simply because both  had  the\tsame\ndirectors it cannot be said that the purpose of the suit was\ndishonest or sinister.\n(vi) The  appellate  Bench of the High Court  has  correctly\ndecided\t that the present appellant has failed to  establish\nthat the impugned decree was procured collusively.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 172 of  1964.<br \/>\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and decree dated July 6,  1962  of<br \/>\nthe  Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree\t No.<br \/>\n213 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. T. Desai, B. Sen and B.P. Maheshwari, for the appllant.<br \/>\nH.   N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General, Ajit Kumar- Sen and\tS.N.<br \/>\nMukherjee, for the respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>April 15, 1964.\t The judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nDAs  GUPTA,  J.-The subject-matter of this litigation  is  a<br \/>\npiece  of  land in the heart of the business centre  of\t the<br \/>\ncity of Calcutta. This\t was  part of a block of 52  cottahs<br \/>\nof land taken on lease on January 21, 1950 from the Official<br \/>\nTrustee,   West\t Bengal,  by  a\t private  limited   company,<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi Private Ltd.  The lease was a building lease for<br \/>\na period of 75 years commencing from January 21, 1950.\t The<br \/>\nlessee was required to complete the construction of a  three<br \/>\nor  four storeyed building on the land within 1O years.\t  In<br \/>\nSeptember  1960,  Raghuvanshi Private Limited  in  its\tturn<br \/>\nleased\t10  1\/2 cottahs out of the 52 cottahs  to  a  public<br \/>\nlimited\t company,  Land\t and  Bricks  Ltd.   This  lease  by<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi  Private  Ltd.,  (hereinafter  referred  to\t  as<br \/>\n&#8220;Raghuvanshi&#8221;) in favour of Land &amp; Bricks Ltd., (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred  to as &#8220;Land &amp; Bricks&#8221;) created a  monthly  tenancy<br \/>\ncommencing  from the 1st October 1950.\tLand and  Bricks  in<br \/>\nits  turn sub-let the entire 10 1\/2 cottahs to\tthe  present<br \/>\nappellant,  Rupchand  Gupta  in his business  name  of\tHind<br \/>\nAirways.   The\tlease  was on the terms as  settled  by\t two<br \/>\nletters dated August 19, 1950 and September 5, 1950  between<br \/>\nHind Airways and Land and Bricks.  By the terms of the\tsub-<br \/>\nlease,\tthe sub-lessee undertook not to sub-let the land  to<br \/>\nanybody,  to vacate the land as soon as it was\trequired  by<br \/>\nLand  and  Bricks  for\tany purpose  and  not  to  construct<br \/>\nanything  on  the  land but only to use the  open  land\t for<br \/>\n&#8220;garage\t purpose  for  motor  vehicles&#8221;.   Inspite  of\tthis<br \/>\nundertaking  however  the  appellant  constructed  a   pacca<br \/>\nstructure  on  the  land.  Land\t and  Bricks  protested\t un-<br \/>\nsuccessfully and then started proceedings under the Calcutta<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">762<\/span><br \/>\nMunicipality  Act for demolition of the\t structures.   Those<br \/>\nproceedings  were  also unsuccessful.  Land and\t Bricks,  it<br \/>\nappears,  also\tserved on the appellant in February  1953  a<br \/>\nnotice\tto   quit. This was not followed up by any  suit  in<br \/>\ncourt.\t But  a suit for arrears of rent was  instituted  by<br \/>\nLand and Bricks against the appellant in September 1955\t and<br \/>\nanother\t in  1957.  Consent decrees were passed in  both  of<br \/>\nthese  suits.  It appears ,that in about May or\t June  1954,<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi  was desirous of getting possession of the\tland<br \/>\nit  has leased to Land and Bricks.  The difficulty was\tthat<br \/>\nLand and Bricks having sublet to the appellant was not in  a<br \/>\nposition  to  deliver possession to its\t lessor\t Raghuvanshi<br \/>\nuntil and unless possession was obtained from the appellant.<br \/>\nIt  was in these circumstances that  Raghuvanshi  determined<br \/>\nits  lease in favour of Land and Bricks by a notice to\tquit<br \/>\ndated  the 11th April 1955.  Raghuvanshi then  instituted  a<br \/>\nsuit No. 3283 of 1955 in the High Court of Calcutta  against<br \/>\nLand  and Bricks for possession of the land.  The  appellant<br \/>\nwas not impleaded in the suit and  Land\t and Bricks did\t not<br \/>\ncontest\t it.   An ex parte decree was made by the  Court  in<br \/>\nfavour of Raghuvanshi on the 11th May 1956.<br \/>\nThe necessary legal consequences of that decree is that\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff as the sub-lessee of Land and Bricks has no  right<br \/>\nto  stay on the land and has become a trespasser.  It is  to<br \/>\navoid the consequence of that decree, that the present\tsuit<br \/>\nwas brought by Rupchand Gupta.\tHis case is that the  decree<br \/>\nhad  been obtained &#8220;by fraud and collusion between  the\t de-<br \/>\nfendants  in order to injure the plaintiff and to evict\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  from the said premises without any  decree  being<br \/>\npassed\tagainst\t the plaintiffs&#8221; Both Land  and\t Bricks\t and<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi have been impleaded in the suit-Land and  Bricks<br \/>\nas  the\t first\tdefendant, and\tRaghuvanshi  as\t the  second<br \/>\ndefendant.  Both of them denied the allegations of fraud and<br \/>\ncollusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The case that the decree was obtained by fraud was given  up<br \/>\nat  the\t hearing  and  only the allegation  that  it  was  a<br \/>\ncollusive suit was pressed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Trial  Judge  held that  there  was  collusion  between<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in the matter of obtain-<br \/>\ning an ex-parte decree in suit No. 3283 of 1955 and that the<br \/>\nplaintiff  was\tnot  bound  by\tthat  decree.\tHe  gave   a<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  the plaintiff was still  a  tenant  under<br \/>\ndefendant  No. 1 and was not liable to be ejected under\t the<br \/>\nex-parte decree.  He also ordered the issue of an injunction<br \/>\nrestraining   the  defendants  from  taking  any  steps\t  in<br \/>\nexecution of the ex-parte decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  appeal by the defendant No. 2, Raghuvanshi,\t the  decree<br \/>\nmade by the Trial Judge was set aside.\tThe learned  Judges,<br \/>\nwho heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">763<\/span><br \/>\nthe  plaintiff had failed to prove that the decree  in\tsuit<br \/>\nNo.  3283 of 1955 had been procured collusively.   So,\tthey<br \/>\nheld  that  the plaintiff was bound by the  decree  in\tthat<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is against this decree of the appellate Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt  that  the  present  appeal  has\tbeen  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff Rupchand Gupta.\n<\/p>\n<p>The only question for decision in the appeal is whether\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  had established his allegation that the  ex-parte<br \/>\ndecree\thad been obtained as a result of  collusion  between<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi and Land and Bricks.  The main circumstances  on<br \/>\nwhich  the  plaintiff relied to prove  collusion  and  which<br \/>\naccording  to  the learned Judge established his  case\twere<br \/>\nthese:\tRaghuvanshi  and  Land and  Bricks  though  distinct<br \/>\nentities   had\t the  same  persons   as   directors.\t The<br \/>\nconstruction of building in terms of indenture of lease with<br \/>\nOfficial  Trustee  was\tnecessarily  in\t the  interests\t  of<br \/>\nshareholders of Raghuvanshi and so this was in the  interest<br \/>\nof  Land and Bricks also as the main shareholders  were\t the<br \/>\nsame.\tThe Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was  a  serious<br \/>\nimpediment  in\tthe way of the plaintiff&#8217;s eviction  in\t any<br \/>\nsuit  by Land and Bricks.  So, Land and Bricks attempted  to<br \/>\nget  possession\t of  the  land\tby  obtaining  an  order  of<br \/>\ndemolition  of structures by proceedings under the  Calcutta<br \/>\nMunicipality Act.  When these failed and it was\t apprehended<br \/>\nthat  a\t suit  for ejectment by Land and  Bricks  might\t not<br \/>\nsucceed\t against the plaintiff that this device of having  a<br \/>\nsuit by Raghuvanshi against Land and Bricks was decided upon<br \/>\nby  agreement between Raghuvanshi and Land and\tBricks.\t  By<br \/>\narrangement between the two, Land and Bricks did not contest<br \/>\nthe  suit and to avoid any risk of any defence being  raised<br \/>\nby the plaintiff he was not impleaded in the suit at all.<br \/>\nAll  the circumstances taken together justify, it was  urged<br \/>\nby  the appellant, the conclusion that the defendant  No.  2<br \/>\ncolluded with defendant No. 1 to procure the exports  decree<br \/>\nfor  the  purpose  of  executing  that\tdecree\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>One  of the simplest definitions of collusion was  given  by<br \/>\nMr.  Justice Bucknill in Scott v. Scott(1).  &#8220;Collusion\t may<br \/>\nbe  defined&#8221;,  said the learned Judge, &#8220;as an  improper\t act<br \/>\ndone  or  an improper refraining from doing an\tact,  for  a<br \/>\ndishonest   purpose&#8221;.\tSubstantially  the  same   idea\t  is<br \/>\nexpressed in the definition given by Whatron&#8217;s Law  Lexicon,<br \/>\n14th   Edition,\t p.  212.  viz.,  &#8220;Collusion   in   judicial<br \/>\nproceedings is a secret arrangement between two persons that<br \/>\nthe  one should institute a suit against the other in  order<br \/>\nto obtain the decision<br \/>\n(1)  [1913] Law Rerports (Probate Division) 52.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">764<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of  a  judicial tribunal for some sinister  purpose&#8221;.\tThis<br \/>\ndefinition of collusion was approved by the Court in Nagubai<br \/>\nAmmal &amp; ors., v. B. Shamma Rao and ors.(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus  the  mere\t fact that the\tdefendant  agrees  with\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff that if a suit is brought he would not defend\t it,<br \/>\nwould  not necessarily prove collusion.\t It is only if\tthis<br \/>\nagreement is done improperly in the sense that It  dishonest<br \/>\npurpose is intended to be achieved that they can be said  to<br \/>\nhave colluded.\n<\/p>\n<p>There  is  little doubt that in the present  case  Land\t and<br \/>\nBricks\tagreed with Raghuvanshi that the suit for  ejectment<br \/>\nwould  not be contested.  When the suit was instituted\tLand<br \/>\nand  Bricks  did  not contest and the  ex-parte\t decree\t was<br \/>\npassed.\t Raghuvanshi did not implead this appellant in\tthat<br \/>\nsuit.  Can any of these acts, viz., Land and Bricks agreeing<br \/>\nwith  Raghuvanshi  that it would not contest the  suit,\t the<br \/>\nactual\trefraining  by Land and Bricks from  contesting\t the<br \/>\nsuit  or  the  act  of Raghuvanshi  in\tnot  impleading\t the<br \/>\nappellant, be an improper act or improper refraining from an<br \/>\nact?  We do not see how any of these things can be said\t +to<br \/>\nbe improper.\n<\/p>\n<p>Taking\tthe last action first, viz., Raghuvanshi&#8217;s  omission<br \/>\nto  implead  the appellant, it is quite clear that  the\t law<br \/>\ndoes  not require that the sub-lessee need be made a  party.<br \/>\nIt  has been rightly pointed out by the High Court  that  in<br \/>\nall  cases  possession of the laid on the basis of  a  valid<br \/>\nnotice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the<br \/>\nsub-lessee as a party to the   suit,  the  object,  of\t the<br \/>\nlandlord  is  to  eject\t the sub-lessee\t from  the  land  in<br \/>\nexecution  of  the  decree  and\t such  an  object  is  quite<br \/>\nlegitimate.   The decree in such a suit would bind the\tsub-<br \/>\nlessee.\t This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is<br \/>\na position well understood by him when he took the subleases<br \/>\nThe law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be<br \/>\nan improper act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Nor is it possible, in our opinion, to say that the omission<br \/>\nof  Land  and Bricks to contest the ejectment  suit  was  an<br \/>\nimproper  act.\t It  has not been suggested  that  Land\t and<br \/>\nBricks\thad a good defence against the claim  for  ejectment<br \/>\nbut  did not take it for the mere purpose of helping  Raghu-<br \/>\nvanshi to get possession of the land.  Even if it had a good<br \/>\ndefence, we do not think it was bound to take it.  It may be<br \/>\nthat  if Land and Bricks had a defence and the\tdefence\t was<br \/>\nsuch which if brought to the notice of the court would\thave<br \/>\nstood  in  the way of any decree being passed in  favour  of<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi  there would be reason to say that the  omission<br \/>\nto  implead the sub-lessee was actuated by a dishonest\tpur-<br \/>\npose and consequently was improper.  It is not necessary for<br \/>\n(1) [1956] S.C.R. 451<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">765<\/span><br \/>\nus however to consider the matter further as neither in\t the<br \/>\ncourts below nor before us was any suggestion made on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellant sub-lessee that Land and Bricks had even  a<br \/>\nplausible defence against Raghuvanshi&#8217;s claim for ejectment.<br \/>\nWe  have  already  mentioned  the  fact\t that  one  of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  which the plaintiff claimed showed  collusion<br \/>\nwas that the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act stood in the way  of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s eviction of Land and Bricks.  It is unneces-<br \/>\nsary  for  us to decide whether or not the appellant  was  a<br \/>\nThika  tenant  within  the meaning  of\tthe  Calcutta  Thika<br \/>\nTenancy\t Act, 1949.  If he was, that Act  would\t undoubtedly<br \/>\nhave  protected\t him against eviction by  Land\tand  Bricks.<br \/>\nThat  Act could however have no operation in a suit  brought<br \/>\nby Raghuvanshi against Land and Bricks.\t It has been held by<br \/>\nthe  High Court of Calcutta that the Thika Tenancy  Act\t was<br \/>\ndesigned  to protect the Thika tenant from eviction  by\t his<br \/>\nlandlord  only\tand not against eviction  from\tany  source.<br \/>\nShamsuddin  Ahmed  v. Dinanath Mullick &amp; ors.,\tAppeal\tfrom<br \/>\nOriginal  Decree  No.  123 of 1957, decided  on\t August\t 13,<br \/>\n1959).\tThe correctness of this view has not been challenged<br \/>\nbefore\tus.   Nor is it the appellant&#8217;s case that  Land\t and<br \/>\nBricks\twas a Thika tenant of Raghuvanshi.  Obviously,\tthis<br \/>\ncould  not  be\tsuggested, because  Land  and  Bricks  never<br \/>\nerected any structure at all. (See the definition of a Thika<br \/>\ntenant\tin  s. 2, cl. 5 of the Calcutta Thika  Tenancy\tAct,<br \/>\n1949).\tOn the materials on the record we are satisfied that<br \/>\nthere was no defence that Land and Bricks could have  raised<br \/>\nfor resisting Raghuvanshi&#8217;s claim for ejectment.<br \/>\nThe  crux of the matter is: Was this attempt by\t Raghuvanshi<br \/>\nto  get\t possession  of the land  a  dishonest\tor  sinister<br \/>\npurpose?  We are asked by Mr. Desai to spell dishonesty\t out<br \/>\n&#8216;of the fact that the directors of Raghuvanshi and Land\t and<br \/>\nBricks were common and so the persons who were interested in<br \/>\nLand. and Bricks were also interested in seeing that  Raghu-<br \/>\nvanshi\thad  not to suffer for forfeiture of his  lease\t for<br \/>\nfailure to comply with the covenant to construct a  building<br \/>\nby  1960.   All this may be taken to be true.  But,  we\t are<br \/>\nunable\tto see how this would make Raghuvanshi&#8217;s attempt  to<br \/>\nget possession of the land dishonest or sinister.  It is not<br \/>\nas if Raghuvanshi did not actually want to get possession of<br \/>\nthe  land  but\twanted\tto  help  Land\tand  Bricks  to\t get<br \/>\npossession.  It has also to be remembered that the  identity<br \/>\nof  the directors and the identity of the main\tshareholders<br \/>\ndo  not\t in any way affect the position that in law  and  in<br \/>\nfact  Raghuvanshi  and\tLand and Bricks\t were  distinct\t and<br \/>\nseparate  entities.  It is not even remotely suggested\tthat<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi and Land and Bricks were really one and the same<br \/>\nperson with two names.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">766<\/span><\/p>\n<p>If  that had been so, there might have been good reason\t for<br \/>\nthinking that it was in an attempt to surmount the  obstacle<br \/>\nrepresented  by the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act,\t 1949,\tthat<br \/>\nthis mode of Raghuvanshi suing Land and Bricks for ejectment<br \/>\nwas resorted to.  Indeed, if Raghuvanshi and Land and Bricks<br \/>\nwere  one and the same person possession of Land and  Bricks<br \/>\nwould be possession of Raghuvanshi and a suit by Raghuvanshi<br \/>\nto eject Land and Bricks would be meaningless.\tBut, that is<br \/>\nnot the appellant&#8217;s case.  It appears from the High  Court&#8217;s<br \/>\njudgment  that the plaintiff&#8217;s counsel made it plain  before<br \/>\nthe court that it was not his client&#8217;s case that the  plain-<br \/>\ntiff&#8217;s\treal  lessor was Raghuvanshi Private Ltd.,  and\t not<br \/>\nLand  and Bricks Ltd.  In the present appeal before us\talso<br \/>\nMr.  Desai  argued  on the basis that Land  and\t Bricks\t and<br \/>\nRaghuvanshi  were  distinct entities and that the  lease  of<br \/>\nLand  and  Bricks under Raghuvanshi was\t a  real  subsisting<br \/>\nlease at the time of Suit No. 3283 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  our judgment, the appellate Bench of the High Court\t has<br \/>\nrightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed<br \/>\nto  establish that the decree in Suit No. 3283 of  1955\t was<br \/>\nprocured  collusively.\tThe suit was therefore rightly\tdis-<br \/>\nmissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.<br \/>\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">767<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 1889, 1964 SCR (7) 760 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: RUP CHAND GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: RAGHUVANSHI PRIVATE LIMITED &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/1964 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2475,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\",\"name\":\"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964","datePublished":"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964"},"wordCount":2475,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964","name":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-28T04:22:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rup-chand-gupta-vs-raghuvanshi-private-limited-anr-on-15-april-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rup Chand Gupta vs Raghuvanshi Private Limited &amp; Anr on 15 April, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}