2003 (7) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 8C 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 : 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, B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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No. 1, then filed another writ petition against the said order dated 6-6-1988 before the High Court but the same was withdrawn on the ground that he had in the meanwhile availed alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the same order.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 Chander Agarwal were dismissed by the Appellate Board on 29-5-1991 holding as under : "(a)The 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 was 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs 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 appellates herein on monetary terms in the event it comes to the conclusion that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. Re : Question No. 2 18. Sections 9 and 10 of the Companies Act are as under : "9. Act to override memorandum, articles, etc.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act- (a )the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the memorandum or articles of a company, or in any agreement executed by it, or in any resolution passed by the company in general meeting or by its Board of directors, whether the same be registered, executed or passed, as the case may be, before or after the commencement of this Act; and (b)any provision contained in the memorandum, ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o v. Bodderpalli Lakshminarayana [1962] Supp. 1 SCR 8, this Court upon considering the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 observed that the matter relating to ownership of the press is a matter of general law and the Court, thus, must follow that law. It was observed that a declared keeper of the press is not necessarily the owner thereof so as to be able to confer title to the press upon another. 21. 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 v. Ogeppa 2003 (3) Su....