Back
2003(4) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Ramesh Chandra Agarwala & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4774-76 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4777-78 of 1996
Decided on 7-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Sunil Gupta, S.K. Gambhir, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, P.P. Rao, R.C. Srivastava, TLV Iyer and Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocates, P.D. Tyagi, Vivek Vishnoi, R.R. Singh, N.K. Modi, Anil Sharma, Awnish Sinha, H.K. Puri, U. Hazarika, Ankur Modi, Sanjay Kr. Pathak, B.B. Thakur, Ms. Shririn Khajuria (N.P.) Gaurab Banerjee, Niraj Sharma, Ankur Modi, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, G.D. Upadhyay, R.D. Upadhyay, Advocates.
Held : At the outset, we may observe that when a disputed question as regard the right of one partner against the other to file a declaration in terms of the provisions of the Act had arisen for consideration, the High Court was not correct in issuing a subsequent direction in the review petition. Such a jurisdiction the High Court did not have. The conflicting rights of the parties were required to be determined in accordance with law by the statutory authority. Such a dispute, it goes without saying, should be determined as expeditiously as possible inasmuch as the dispute involved rival claims of the parties to the lis to run and manage newspaper business. In any event, while directing the statutory authority to dispose of the matter in accordance with law; it does not stand to any reason as to why a party to the lis was given such liberty so as to file an application for stay of inquiry by the District Magistrate till the disposal of the civil suit particularly when the High Court itself was of the opinion that the suit was not maintainable. We fail to see any reason as to why one party to the lis should be given unfair advantage over another in the matter of enforcement of statutory rights under the said Act. The orders of the High Court are, thus, absolutely contradictory to and inconsistent with each other, and do not stand a moment s scrutiny. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside with a direction to the Appellate Board to hear out and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of communication of this order. It would be open to the Appellate Board to consider the question of adequately compensating the appellants herein on monetary terms in the event it comes to the conclusion that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. (Para 18)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 9-Companies Act, 1956-Sections 9 and 10-Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867-Section 8C-Jurisdiction of Civil Court, ouster of-Rival claims of parties as to whether one party has illegally been dispossessed by the other or not-Matter concerning ownership of Press-Whether Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit-(Yes).
Held : The civil court, in the instant case, was concerned with the rival claims of the parties as to whether one party has illegally been dispossessed by the other or not. Such a suit, apart from the general law, would also be maintainable in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In such matters the court would not be concerned even with the question as to title/ownership of the property. (Para 20)
The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all dispute of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well-settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court. The burden of proof in this behalf shall be on the party who asserts that the civil court s jurisdiction is ousted. [See Sahebgouda (dead) by Lrs. and Others vs. Ogeppa and Others [2003(3) Supreme 13]. Even otherwise, the civil court s jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956. (Para 23)
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the civil suit was maintainable. In any event, we fail to understand and rather it is strange as to how the High Court while rejecting relief to the original plaintiff, (late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal), granted a similar relief in favour of the first respondent herein. (Para 26)
JUDGMENT
Sinha S.B.-These appeals involving identical questions of law and facts were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Civil Appeal Nos. 4774-76 of 1996 arise out of the judgments and orders dated 12.3.1993 and 18.3.1993 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1654, 1727 and 1728 of 1991; wherein the legality/validity of three orders passed on 29.5.1991 by the Press and Registration Board purported to be in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 8-C of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short the Act ) were questioned by the Respondent No. 1 herein.
3. Civil Appeal Nos. 4777-78 of 1996 arise out of the judgment and order dated 29.6.1991 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court arising out of Misc. Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 1988.
4. Factual matrix of the matter, shortly stated is as under :
5. Ramesh Chander Agarwal s/o late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, a partner of M/s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Brothers allegedly upon taking advantage of his father s ill-health made an attempt to create a lease in relation to the right to publish Dainik Bhaskar from Bhopal. According to late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, to the best of his knowledge, he did not sign the said document dated 13.4.1984 and in any event the same was meant to be applicable only for Bhopal and not for any other place. On 13.4.1985, a partition/family settlement deed was prepared wherein late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was not a signatory. Allegedly, Bishambhar Dayal also did not agree to the said settlement and did not sign the said purported deed of family settlement.
6. Ms. Hemlata Agarwal, eldest daughter of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal through his second wife, was made a Joint Managing Director of Bhaskar Publications and Allied Industries. Ramesh Chander Agarwal being intrigued thereby tried to increase the equity shares of the company to such an extent that he gets majority in the equity shares purported to be in total disregard and violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said respondent also took alleged forcible possession of the Printing Press on 3.7.1987 which had been leased out by M/s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Brothers (the Firm) to M/s. Bhaskar Publications and Allied Industries Private Limited. Allegedly, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and his two daughters were also physically assaulted by the first respondent leading to initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceedings, the Executive Magistrate directed the police to open the locks put in the premises of the printing press in presence of both the parties. However, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was not permitted to run the said printing press.
7. Thereafter, Ramesh Chander Agarwal filed a declaration before the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, wherein he allegedly accepted the partnership of M/s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and others as owners of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar. In terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act read with the rules framed thereunder, declarations are required to be filed by the owner as also the printer(s) and publisher(s) thereof. Six declarations were filed; three each by Respondent No. 2 on the purported authority of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and three by the Respondent No. 1. Objections to the said declarations were filed by late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal before the appropriate authority.
8. By an order dated 6.6.1998, the District Magistrate, Gwalior, in exercise of his power under Section 8-B of the Act cancelled the said declarations dated 11.3.1985 filed by Respondent No. 1. He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Press and Registration Appellate Board, but the same was ultimately withdrawn.
9. He in the meanwhile filed a writ petition before the High Court for stay of the proceedings before the District Magistrate. Although an order of stay was passed therei
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
