Case: Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lr.  Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal

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 fathers 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 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.6. 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 printers and publishers 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.7. By an order dated 6.6.1988, 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.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 but before the same could be communicated the aforementioned order dated 6.6.1988 was passed. Ramesh Chander Agarwal, Respondent No.1 then filed another writ petition against the said order dated 6.6.1988 before the High Court but the same was withdrawn on the ground that he had in the meanwhile availed alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the same order. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Board, yet another writ petition was filed by the first respondent marked as Writ Petition No. 798 of 1988 praying therein for quashing of the order dated 6.6.1988 whereby the declarations were directed to be filed.9. The said appeals filed by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal were dismissed by the Appellate Board on 29.5.1991 holding asThe document at the top portion is pasted with thick opaque white paper slips from both sides, perhaps to cover up and make unreasonable something which has written or printed under these slips;(b) Below the seal of the Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Bhopal (party superimposed) appears a somewhat blurred impressed of the seal of the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior;(c) The printed proforma of A1 is patently of Bhopal. That proforma does not tally with the printed form produced by the Appellant with his application.Annexure A-1, is only a photocopy of the original in the absence of which, the true effect of these suspicious circumstances (a) to (c) cannot be correctly assessed. However, the appellant admits that the photocopy of the declaration A-1 was presented by Devinder Tiwari not personally by him (appellant). This Devinder Tiwari who, according to the appellant, as a Director of the Company did not file any letter of authority on behalf of the Company, or even from the appellant, to explain why the declaration was not permitted in person by thethere is no reason to differ from the finding of the District Magistrate, that Shri S.C. Shukla (Deputy Collector) Executive Magistrate, not being a District, Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not competent, in view of Section 5(2) of the Act, to entertain and authenticate the declaration dated 11.3.1985, filed by the appellant.For all the reasons aforesaid, we would uphold the order dated 6.6.88 of the District Magistrate, Gwalior and dismiss the Appeal No. III filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal.A writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal thereagainst. Similar writ petitions came to the filed in relation to the orders passed in respect of other declarations.11. By reason of the impugned order dated 12.3.1993, the order of the Appellate Board dated 29.5.1991 as also that of the District Magistrate, Gwalior, dated 6.6.1988 were quashed and the Appellate Board was directed to consider the matter afresh within a period of three months. Strangely, enough however, the same learned Judge on a review application filed by the first respondent herein by an order dated 18.3.1993 directed that the inquiry by the District Magistrate should be deferred if an application is filed before him till the final outcome of the civil litigations by the parties.12. Late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, alleging his alleged illegal dispossession from the printing press, filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction in the court of ADJ, Gwalior, which was registered as Suit No.1-A of 1988. An application for grant of injunction in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed wherein a prayer was made for grant of temporary injunction against Respondent No.1 restraining him from publishing the newspaper illegally and furthermore not to indulge in false propaganda and/ or to take forcible possession of the printing press. Respondent No.1, Ramesh Chander Agarwal also filed a suit against the late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal praying therein for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the working of the press at Gwalior and not to take possession thereof. He also filed an application for grant of interim injunction in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.13. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge before whom the matters were pending, disposed of both the applications by a common order dated 28.5.1988. The court directed maintenance of status quo by the parties and further directed that Ramesh Chander Agarwal would not interfere with the working of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal in the matter of managing the affairs of the company. However, in his order relating to the application filed for injunction in Suit No. 2-A of 1988 of Respondent No.1, the court directed the original appellant, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal not to interfere in the printing and publishing of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar from Gwalior.14. Both the parties preferred appeals before the High Court against the said orders which were marked as M.A. No. 60 of 1988 and M.A. No. 61 of 1988. The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Ramesh Chander Agarwal and dismissed Appeal No. 61 of 1988 filed by the late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal holding that the suit for temporary injunction was barred under Section 10 of the Companies Act.15. These appeals were filed by Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (since deceased), questioning the legality/correctness of the said orders.

Court's reasoning:
17. 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 disposed 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 moments 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.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 generally law, would also be maintainable in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In such matters of the court would not be concerned even with the question as to title/ownership of the property.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 iswould 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 courts jurisdiction is ousted. (See Sahebgouda (dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Ogeppa and others (2003(3) Supreme 13). Even otherwise, the civil courts jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956.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.26. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside. The matters are remitted to the Collector/High Court for a fresh decision on merits as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.