Back
2005(1) JLJ 189
(SUPREME COURT)
V.N. Khare, C.J.I., S.B. Sinha and Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and another v.
Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and others
Civil Appeals No. 4774 to 4776 of 1996 with Nos. 4777 and 4778 of
1996; Decided on 7.7.2003.
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that its earlier direction contained in the order dated 12.3.1993 directing the Appellate Board to dispose of the appeal within three months need not be adhered to, if Ramesh Chandra Agarwal files an application for stay of the inquiry by the District Magistrate during the pendency of the civil suit?
[Para 16
Held : At the outset, we may observe that when a disputed question as regards 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 17
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 9 -- Companies Act, 1956 -- Ss. 9 and 10 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 6 -- S. 10 of 1956 Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court when dispossession of one party by the other is claimed -- moreover, such suit is also maintainable under S. 6 of 1963 Act.
Whether the civil Court had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit? [Para 16
Held: A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions leaves no manner of doubt that thereby the jurisdiction of the civil Court has not been ousted. 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 the title/ownership of the property. [Para 19
(3) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 6 -- no one can be forcibly dispossessed by another except in accordance with Law. AIR 1968 SC 620 relied on. [Para 20
(4) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 -- S. 5 -- matter relating to ownership of press -- is a matter of general law. AIR 1962 SC 586 relied on. [Para 21
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 9 -- bar of civil Court‘s jurisdiction -- is not to be readily accepted -- Court would lean infavour of construction which upholds retention of civil Courts‘ jurisdiction. (2003) 3 Supreme 13 relied on. [Paras 20 & 22
(6) Companies Act, 1956 -- Ss. 2(11) and 10 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 9 -- jurisdiction of civil Court -- has not been barred by any provision of the Act -- in some cases like winding up of companies, civil Court‘s jurisdiction is impliedly barred. (1980) 50 Comp.Cases 611 (Kef.) and (1986) 60 Camp. Cases 353 (Del.) referred to. [Paras 23 & 24
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 & izsl vkSj iqLrd jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1867 && /kkjk 5] 8[k rFkk 8d && vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ?kks"k.kk Qkby djus ds ckjs esa fookn dk iz‘u nks izkbosV ds e/; mn~Hkwr && ,sls vf/kdkj dkuwuh izkf/kdkj.k }kjk fofuf‘pr fd, tkuk gksrk gS && mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa ,d i{kdkj ds i{k esa funs‘k fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ughaA D;k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g funs‘k tkjh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk fd ;fn ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk dh tk jgh tk¡p jksds tkus ds fy, jes‘kpanz vxzoky flfoy okn ds yacu ds nkSjku vkonsu Qkby djrk gS rc vkns‘k fnukad 12-3-1993 esa varfoZ"V] vihyh eaMy ds rhu ekl ds Hkhrj vihy dk fuiVkjk djus ds mPp U;k;ky; ds iwoZrj funs‘k dh vuq‘kfDr dh tkuk vko‘;d ugha gS \ ¿ iSjk 16 À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkjaHk esa gh ge leqfDr djuk pkgsaxs fd tc vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj ?kks"k.kk Qkby djus ds ,d Hkkxhnkj ds fo#) vU; Hkkxhnkj ds vf/kdkj ds ckjs esa fookn dk iz‘u fopkjkFkZ mBk Fkk rc iqufoZyksdu ;kfpdk esa mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Ik‘pkr~orhZ funs‘k tkjh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha FkkA mPp U;k;ky; dk ,slh vf/kdkfjrk ugha FkhA i{kdkjksa ds fojks/kh vf/kdkjksa dk vo/kkj.k dkuwuh izkf/kdj.k }kjk fof/k ds vuqlkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr FkkA ;g dguk vko‘;d ugha fd ,sls fookn dk vo/kkj.k ;FkklaHko ‘kh?kz fd;k tkuk pkfg, D;kasfd bl fookn esa] eqdnes ds i{kdkjksa ds lekpkji= dkjckj pykus vkSj mldk izca/k djus ds izfr}a}h nkos varoZfyr FksA fdlh Hkh n‘kk esa] dkuwuh izkf/kdj.k dks fof/k ds vuqlkj ekeys dk fuiVkjk djus dk funs‘k nsrs le; rdZ dh dlkSVh ij og fcYdqy Hkh [kjk ugha mrjrk fd eqdnesa ds ,d i{kdkj dks flfoy okn ds fuiVkjs rd ,slh Loar=rk D;kas nh xbZ fd og fd tyk eftLVªsV }kjk dh tk jgh tk¡p dh jksd ds fy, vkosnu dj ldrk gS] fof‘k"Vr% tc Lo;a mPp U;k;ky; dh jk; Fkh fd okn pykus ;ksX; ugha gSA gesa bldk dksbZ Hkh dkj.k fn[kkbZ ugha nsrk fd mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dkuwuh vf/kdkjksa ds izorZu ds fo"k; esa eqdnesa ds ,d i{kdkj dks nwljs i{kdkj dh rqyuk esa v_tq Qk;nk D;kas fn;k tkuk pkfg,A bl izdkj] mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k iw.kZr% ijLij fojks/kh rFkk ,d&nwljs ls valxr gS] le{k ,d iy Hkh ugha Bgj ldrsA vr%] vkf{kIr vkns‘k] vihyh eaMy dks bl funs‘k ds lkFk vikLr fd, tkrs gSa fd vihy dh ;FkklaHko ‘kh?kz lquokbZ vkSj fuiVkjk fd;k tk,] ijarq bl vkns‘k dh lalwpuk ds fnukad ls rhu ekl ls vf/kd nsj ls ughaA vihyh cksMZ }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus dh n‘kk esa fd vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; Fkh] bl vihy ds vihykFkhZx.k dks /ku }kjk Ik;kZIr :Ik ls izfrd`r djus iz‘u ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿ iSjk 17À ¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && diauh vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 9 && rFkk 10 && fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 6 & lu~ 1956 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 esa] tc ,d i{kdkj }kjk vU; i{kdkj dks csdCtk djus dk nkok fd;k x;k gks rc flfoy U;k;ky; vf/kdkfjrk ls oafpr ugha fd;k x;k gS && blds vfrfjDr] ,slk okn lu~ 1963 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu Hkh pykus ;ksX; gSA D;k flfoy U;k;ky; dks okn xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk Fkh \ ¿ iSjk 16À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZfYyf[kr mica/kksa ds ifj‘khyu ek= ls fdlh izdkj dk lansg ugha jgrk fd mlds }kjk flfoy U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ls oafpr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izLrqr ekeys esa] flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkjksa ds bu izfr}a}h nkoksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk Fkk fd ,d i{kdkj] vU; i{kdkj }kjk voS/k :i ls csdCtk fd;k x;k gS ;k ughaA ,slk okn] lk/kkj.k fof/k ds vfrjDr] fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 dh /kkjk 6 ds vuqlkj Hkh pykus ;ksX; gksxkA ,sls ekeyksa esa U;k;ky; }kjk laifÙk ds gd@LokfeRo ds iz‘u ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k tk,xkA ¿ iSjk 19À ¼3½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 6 && dksbZ Hkh O;fDr fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk fof/k ds vuqlkj ds flok;] cyiwoZd csdCtk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1968 ,l lh 620 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 20À ¼4½ izsl vkSj iqLrd jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1867 && /kkjk 5 && izsl ds LokfeRo ls lacaf/kr ekeyk && lk/kkj.k fof/k dk fo"k; gSA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 586 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 21À ¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk otZu & rqjar Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk,xk && U;k;ky; dk >qdko ,sl vFkkZUo;u ds i{k esa gksxk ftlesa flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk cus jgus dk ekU;rk nh tk,A ¼2003½ 3 lqizhe 13 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 22À ¼6½ daiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 2¼11½ rFkk 10 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 9 && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk && vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh mica/k }kjk oftZr ugha dh xbZ gS && daifu;ksa ds ifjlkeu tSls dqN ekeyksa esa flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ijks{kr% oftZr gSA ¼1950½ 50 daiuh dslsl 611 ¼dsjy½ rFkk ¼1980½ 60 daiuh dslsl 354 ¼fnYyh½ fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 23 ,oa 24À
Sinha, J. -- 1. 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 Appeals 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 Petitions Nos. 1654, 1727 and 1728 of 1991, wherein the legality/validity of the 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 respondent 1 herein.
3. Civil Appeals 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. Appeals Nos. 60-61 of 1988.
4. Factual matrix of the matter, shortly stated, is as under:
Ramesh Chandra 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.
5. 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 Chandra 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 Porcedure. 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.
6. Thereafter, Ramesh Chandra 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 respondent No. 1. Objections to the said declarations were filed by late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal before the appropriate authority.
7. By an order dated 6.6.1988, the District Magistrate, Gwalior, in exercise of his power under section 8B of the Act, cancelled the said declarations dated 11.3.1985 filed by respondent No. 1. He preferred an appeal there against before the Press and Registration Appellate Board, but the same was ultimately withdrawn.
8. 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 therein
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
