{"id":202200,"date":"1993-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993"},"modified":"2018-04-06T01:36:59","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T20:06:59","slug":"new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","title":{"rendered":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 402\t JT 1993 Supl., 589<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNEW REDBANK TEA CO. PVT.LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKUMKUM MITTAL (Agrawal,J.)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  (1) 402\t  JT 1993  Supl.    589\n 1993 SCALE  (4)480\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS.C. AGRAWAL, J.- Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   This  appeal  raises  the question\t whether  Terai\t Tea
\nCompany Pvt.  Ltd., respondent 11 herein, is entitled to  be
\nimpleaded as a party (defendant) in E.O. Suit No. 1 of\t1985
\npending in the Calcutta High Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  subject-matter of the dispute between the  parties
\nis  Dharanipur Tea Estate situate in District Jalpaiguri  in
\nWest  Bengal.\tOne Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick  (deceased)\t had
\nobtained  the lease of the land of the said tea estate\tfrom
\nthe  Government\t of West Bengal.  The said lease was  for  a
\nterm of thirty years commencing from October 27, 1964.\t The
\nNew  Red Bank Tea Co. Pvt.  Ltd., appellant 1 owns  the\t Red
\nBank  Tea  Estate  and Surendra Nagar Tea  Co.\tPvt.   Ltd.,
\nappellant  2  herein, owns the Surendra\t Nagar\tTea  Estate.
\nDhirendra  Nath\t Bhowmick and his wife, Smt  Reba  Bhowmick,
\nrespondent 3 herein, were having controlling block of shares
\nin both these companies.\n<\/p>\n
+  From the Judgment and Order- dated September 22, 1993  of
\nthe Division Bench, Calcutta in A.\n<\/p>\n
No. Nil of 1993
\n403<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
4.   On\t March 16, 1977, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick  granted  a
\nsub-lease  for\tthe  Dharanipur\t Tea  Estate  in  favour  of
\nappellant 1. By virtue of his control over appellants 1\t and
\n2, Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick was the Managing Director of\t the
\nsaid two companies and the three tea gardens were under\t his
\nmanagement.   On May 14, 1981, Dhirendra Nath  Bhowmick\t and
\nrespondent  3 sold their controlling shares in appellants  1
\nand 2 to Robin Paul, appellant 3, and his group for valuable
\nconsideration  and the charge of the three tea\testates\t was
\nhanded\tover  to appellant 3 and his group.   In  May  1984,
\nDhirendra  Nath Bhowmick and respondent No. 3 filed  a\tsuit
\n(Title Suit No. 8 of 1984) against the appellants as well as
\nrespondents  4\tto  10\tand 12 in  the\tcourt  of  Assistant
\nDistrict  Judge, Jalpaiguri seeking for a  declaration\tthat
\nthe transfer of controlling interest of shares in appellants
\n1  and\t2 are not valid and prayed for\ta  declaration\tthat
\nDhirendra  Nath\t Bhowmick had all the  legal  and  equitable
\nrights, title and interest in respect of the Dharanipur\t Tea
\nEstate and for restoration of possession.  The said suit was
\nsubsequently  transferred to the High Court on November\t 27,
\n1984  under  Clause  13 of the Letters\tPatent\tand  it\t was
\nrenumbered as Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
5.   While the said suit was pending, respondent 11 filed  a
\nsuit  (Suit No. 240 of 1990) in the High Court for  specific
\nperformance  of an agreement dated January 15, 1990 said  to
\nbe  executed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and  M\/s  Dharanipur
\nTea Industries Pvt.  Ltd., respondent 7 herein, in favour of
\nrespondent 11 for the sale of the Dharanipur Tea Estate.  In
\nthe   said  suit  respondent  11  filed\t  applications\t for
\ninjunction as well as for appointment of receiver which were
\ndismissed  by the learned Single Judge of the High Court  by
\norder  dated  April 1, 1991.  Respondent  11  filed  appeals
\nagainst\t the said order of the learned Single Judge and\t the
\nsaid  appeals  were disposed of by a Division Bench  of\t the
\nHigh  Court by a consent order dated August 2, 1991  wherein
\nit was recorded that the respondents (defendants in Suit No.
\n240 of 1990) had agreed to execute the Deed of Conveyance in
\nfavour\tof plaintiff appellants (respondent 11 herein).\t  By
\nthe said order a receiver was appointed over the  Dharanipur
\nTea   Estate  who  was\tempowered  to  take  possession\t  of
\nDharanipur  Tea\t Estate and allow respondent 11 to  run\t the
\nsaid  tea estate until the Deed of Conveyance  was  executed
\nand  the Registering Authority was directed to register\t the
\nDeed of Conveyance without insisting upon production of\t “no
\nobjection   certificate”   under  Section   269-UC   and   a
\ncertificate  under Section 230-A(1) of the Income  Tax\tAct,
\n1961  and  the\tpolice\tauthorities  and  other\t appropriate
\nadministrative\tauthorities  were  directed  to\t afford\t all
\nfacilities, cooperation and help for the purpose of carrying
\nout  of the said order.\t On the basis of the said order\t the
\nReceiver  on August 3, 1991 obtained symbolic possession  of
\nthe  Dharanipur\t Tea  Estate and posted\t Mr  Rungta  as\t the
\nauthorised  representative for respondent 11 to run,  manage
\nand  look after the affairs of the said tea estate  and\t the
\nappellants  were dispossessed from the said tea gardens\t The
\nsaid  order of the High Court dated August 2, 1991  was\t set
\naside by this Court by order dated September 9, 1991 in C.A.
\nNo. 3569 of 1991, New Red Bank Pvt.  Ltd. v. Tarai Tea
\n404<\/span>
\nCompany Pvt.  Ltd. on the view that Extraordinary Suit No. 1
\nof  1985 as well as Suit No. 240 of 1990 ought to have\tbeen
\ntried  together and the suit for specific performance  filed
\nby  respondent\t11 could not have been\tdecreed\t by  consent
\nwithout\t determining  the  legal  title\t to  and  factum  of
\npossession  of\tthe  suit property and that  the  title\t and
\npossession  could not have been decided\t without  impleading
\nappellant  1  as  a party to the suit.\t This  Court,  while
\nsetting aside the decree for specific performance as well as
\nthe order appointing the Receiver, directed the Receiver  to
\ndeliver back the possession of the property to appellant  1.
\nWith the setting aside the decree for specific\tperformance,
\nthe  sale deed that had been executed and  registered  stood
\nautomatically\tcancelled.   Thereafter\t appellant   1\t was
\nimpleaded  as a defendant in Suit No. 240 of 1990  by  order
\ndated November 18, 1992.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick died on March 15, 1992 and\t his
\nlegal  representatives have been brought on record  in\tboth
\nthe suits.\n<\/p>\n
7.   On\t behalf\t of respondent II an oral  prayer  was\tmade
\nbefore\tthe  learned Single Judge for being impleaded  as  a
\ndefendant  in  Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985.   The\tsaid
\noral  prayer  was rejected by the learned  Single  Judge  by
\norder  dated  March 22, 1993 on the view that  it  would  be
\nproper if a formal application was filed giving\t opportunity
\nto  all\t the  parties to put  forward  their  objections  in
\nspecific  terms.  Thereafter respondent 11 filed  a  written
\napplication on April 1, 1993 for being added as a  defendant
\nin  Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985.  The said\t application
\nof  respondent 11 was opposed by the defendants in the\tsaid
\nsuit  but  the\tplaintiffs  had no  objection  to  the\tsaid
\napplication being allowed.  The application was rejected  by
\nthe  learned Single Judge by order dated July 5, 1993.\t The
\nlearned Single Judge was of the view:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Upon  perusal of the materials on record\t and
\n\t      on  appreciation of the point of law, and\t the
\n\t      ratio of the reported decisions cited from the
\n\t      Bar,  this Court finds that M\/s Terai Tea\t Co.
\n\t      Pvt.   Ltd. has already filed  an\t independent
\n\t      title suit and disclosed all its claims in its
\n\t      plaint.\tWhile the said suit is\tbeing  heard
\n\t      along  with Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of  1985,
\n\t      and  when\t there is no  conflict\tof  interest
\n\t      between  the plaintiff in\t Extraordinary\tSuit
\n\t      No.  1 of 1985 and the plaintiff in  Suit\t No.
\n\t      240 of 1990 and where Terai Tea Co. Pvt.\tLtd.
\n\t      stands for success only when the plaintiff  in
\n\t      Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985 will succeed,
\n\t      there is no scope for impleading Terai Tea Co.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Pvt.    Ltd.   as\t  a   defendant\t  again\t  in
\n\t      Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1985.\t While\tboth
\n\t      the  suits would be heard\t analogously  and\/or
\n\t      together, Terai Tea Co. Pvt.  Ltd. is entitled
\n\t      to take effective steps so far as its own suit
\n\t      is  concerned and in Extraordinary Suit No.  1<\/span>
\n\t      of 1985 it cannot claim to be added as a party
\n\t      to  help\tand\/or assist the plaintiff  in\t any
\n\t      manner whatsoever.  Mr Gupta appearing for the
\n\t      defendant has tried to impress upon this Court
\n\t      that several complications will arise if Terai
\n\t      Tea   Co.\t Pvt.\tLtd.  is  added\t as   party-
\n\t      defendant,  and  at the time of trial  it\t can
\n\t      lead evidence to the prejudice of the interest
\n\t      of other defendants.  Apart from any technical
\n\t      difficulty, this Court is of the view that the
\n\t      presence of Terai Tea Co. Pvt.  Ltd. is not
\n\t      405<\/span>
\n\t      necessary\t   for\t effectual   and    complete
\n\t      adjudication of the matter in dispute.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Feeling  aggrieved\t by the said order  of\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge,\trespondent  II filed  an  appeal  which\t was
\nallowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by  judgment
\ndated September 22, 1993 on the view that the learned Single
\nJudge  was  not\t right\tin  holding  that  the\tpresence  of
\nrespondent  11 was not necessary for effectual and  complete
\nadjudication  of  the matter in dispute.  According  to\t the
\nlearned Judges the addition of respondent 11 is necessary to
\navoid  the  possibility of a multiplicity  of  the  judicial
\nproceedings  and  that if respondent 11 is kept out  of\t the
\nsuit and ultimately the same is dismissed, such outcome will
\nnot  bind them and they will nonetheless have  to  challenge
\nthe  decree  passed  in\t such suit  by\tway  of\t a  separate
\nproceeding   only   to\tcontinue  the  suit   for   specific
\nperformance.   The  present appeal is directed\tagainst\t the
\nsaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The application for being impleaded as a defendant\t was
\nmoved  by respondent 11 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC  which
\nprovides as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2)  The\t Court\tmay  at\t any  stage  of\t the
\n\t      proceedings,   either  upon  or  without\t the
\n\t      application of either party, and on such terms
\n\t      as  may appear to the Court to be just,  order
\n\t      that the name of any party improperly  joined,
\n\t      whether  as plaintiff or defendant, be  struck
\n\t      out, and that the name of any person who ought
\n\t      to  have been joined, whether as plaintiff  or
\n\t      defendant, or whose presence before the  Court
\n\t      may be necessary in order to enable the  Court
\n\t      effectually and completely to adjudicate\tupon
\n\t      and  settle all the questions involved in\t the
\n\t      suit, be added.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  The  said provision empowers the court to implead as  a
\nparty to a suit a person (i) who ought to have been  joined,
\nwhether\t as plaintiff or defendant; or (ii)  whose  presence
\nbefore\tthe  court may be necessary in order to\t enable\t the
\ncourt  to  effectually and completely  adjudicate  upon\t and
\nsettle\tall the questions involved in the suit.\t It  is\t not
\nthe  case  of  respondent 11 that they ought  to  have\tbeen
\njoined\tas  a defendant in E.O. Suit No. 1 of  1985.   Their
\napplication  has been allowed by the Division Bench  of\t the
\nHigh  Court on the ground that presence of respondent 11  is
\nnecessary  for\teffectual and complete adjudication  of\t the
\nmatter in dispute.  We find it difficult to agree with\tthis
\nview of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.  In\t the  leading  English case of\tMoser  v.  Marsden’,
\nLindly\tL.J.  has  held that a party  who  is  not  directly
\ninterested  in\tthe  issues between the\t plaintiff  and\t the
\ndefendant  but is only indirectly or  commercially  affected
\ncannot\tbe  added as a defendant because the  court  has  no
\njurisdiction under the relevant rule to bring him on  record
\neven as a proper party.\t The position is no different  under
\nthe  Indian  law.  As laid down by this Court,\t“in  a\tsuit
\nrelating to property in order that a person may be added  as
\na  party, he should have a direct interest as  distinguished
\nfrom  a\t commercial interest in the  subject-matter  of\t the
\nlitigation”. [See: Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar<\/a>
\n1 (1892) 1 Ch 487: 66 LT 570
\n406<\/span>
\nBegum2.]  In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal  Corpn.
\nof  Greater Bombay3<\/a> this Court has held: (SCC p. 53 1,\tpara\n<\/p>\n
14)
\n\t       “It  cannot be said that the main  object  of
\n\t      the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions
\n\t      though  it may incidentally have that  effect.
\n\t      It  is, therefore, necessary that\t the  person
\n\t      must be directly or legally interested in\t the
\n\t      action  in the answer, i.e., he can  say\tthat
\n\t      the litigation may lead to a result which will
\n\t      affect  him legally that is by curtailing\t his
\n\t      legal rights.  It is difficult to say that the
\n\t      rule  contemplates  joining as a\tdefendant  a
\n\t      person  whose only object is to prosecute\t his
\n\t      own cause of action.”\n<\/p>\n
12.  In the instant case respondent 11, admittedly, have  no
\nlegal interest in the subject-matter of the dispute in\tE.O.
\nSuit No. 1 of 1985.  All that they are claiming is  specific
\nperformance  of\t the agreement for sale\t of  Dharanipur\t Tea
\nEstate said to have been executed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick
\nand  respondent 7 on January 15, 1990.\tThe  said  agreement
\nwas  executed long after the institution of E.O. Suit No.  1
\nof 1985.  Moreover, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in
\nE.O.  Suit  No.\t 1 of 1985 relate to  the  validity  of\t the
\nagreement dated May 14, 1981 whereby the plaintiffs in\tthat
\nsuit had transferred their controlling shares in  appellants
\n1 and 2 in favour of appellant 3 and his group.\t In the said
\nsuit,  the  possession of Dharanipur Tea Estate\t is  claimed
\nonly  on  the basis of control over appellant 1 which  is  a
\nsub-lessee  of the said tea estate.  On the other hand\tSuit
\nNo.  240 of 1990 filed by respondent 11 relates to  specific
\nperformance  of\t the  agreement\t relating  to  the  sale  by
\nDhirendra  Nath Bhowmick and respondent 7 of Dharanipur\t Tea
\nEstate.\t  Respondent  11  cannot  be  said  to\tbe  directly
\ninterested  in the matter of validity of agreement  executed
\nby Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and respondent 3 on May 14, 1981.
\nWe  are,  therefore,  unable to hold that  the\tpresence  of
\nrespondent  11\tis  necessary  for  effectual  and  complete
\nadjudication of the matter in E.O. Suit No. 1 of 1985.\t The
\npresence of respondent 11 in those proceedings, on the other
\nhand, might cause prejudice to the rights of the  appellants
\nin the said suit.  Moreover, both the suits are being  tried
\ntogether  in  accordance with the directions given  by\tthis
\nCourt by its order dated September 9, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
13.  For  the reason aforesaid, the appeal is  allowed,\t the
\njudgment  dated\t September 22, 1993 passed by  the  Division
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal directed  against
\nthe  order dated July 5, 1993 in E.O. Suit No. 1 of 1985  is
\nset  aside  and the order dated July 5, 1993 passed  by\t the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge dismissing the application  filed  by
\nrespondent 11. Is restored.  There is no order as to costs.
\n2 1959 SCR 11 11, 1132: AIR 1958 SC 886
\n3 (1992) 2 SCC 524
\n407<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC (1) 402 JT 1993 Supl., 589 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: NEW REDBANK TEA CO. PVT.LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: KUMKUM MITTAL (Agrawal,J.) DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/11\/1993 BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. […]<\/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-202200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNew Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-05T20:06:59+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T20:06:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2266,\"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\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\",\"name\":\"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T20:06:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-05T20:06:59+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993","datePublished":"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T20:06:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993"},"wordCount":2266,"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\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993","name":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T20:06:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-redbank-tea-co-pvt-ltd-vs-kumkum-mittal-agrawalj-on-16-november-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Kumkum Mittal (Agrawal,J.) on 16 November, 1993"}]},{"@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\/202200","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=202200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}