DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 376 · Decided: 07-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
v. 
RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS. 
JULY 7, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 9: 
Title/ownership of the business property-One party dispossessed other-
C Rival claims-Nature of claims/dispute-Jurisdiction of civil court-Held: Since 
the dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute 
under the provision of the Companies Act, Civil Procedure Code confers 
jurisdiction upon the civil court to resolve the dispute unless barred under a 
statute-Jurisdiction of civil court is not completely barred under the Companies 
D Act-Hence suit is maintainable-Suits on such claims would also be 
maintainable under Specific Relief Act-Provision of law seeking bar of 
jurisdiction on civil court requires strict interpretation-Courts favour the 
construction which uphold retention of jurisdiction-Burden of proof would 
be on the party who asserts ouster of jurisdiction -
Interpretation of Statutes-
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 6-Companies Act, 1956-Sections 9 and 
E JO-Press and Registration of Books Act and Rules thereunder. 
Respondent No. I, a partner of a firm, allegedly made a partition/ 
family settlement deed which was not signed by the original appellant, 
father of respondent No.I, and attempted to create a lease in respect of 
F publication of a news paper belonging to the said firm in his favour. 
However, Appellant made his eldest daughter, from his second wife, as 
Joint Director of the firm. Aggrieved, Respondent no. I manipulated to get 
majority of equity shares of the firm in his favour in total disregard/ 
violation of the provisions of the Companies Act and also took forcible 
possession of the Printing Press of the firm and assaulted the appellant 
G and his two daughters and not allowed the appellant to run the Printing 
Press. Respondents had filed declarations in the capacity of Owner, 
Printers and Publishers thereof in the District Court. The District 
Magistrate cancelled the declarations filed by Respondent No. I. First 
respondent and others filed appeals before the Appellate Board and writ 
H petition before the High Court for quashing the orders of cancellation of 
376 
D.P. AGARWAL v. R.C. AGARWAL 
377 
declarations. Appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Board. On appeal, A 
High Court quashed both the orders and directed the Appellate Board to 
consider the matter afresh. On a review petition, High Court directed that 
in case Respondent No.I files a stay application in the matter, the inquiry 
by the District Magistrate would be deferred till disposal of the civil 
litigation by the parties. 
In the meanwhile, the original appellant filed a suit for eviction and 
permanent injunction and also for grant of temporary injunction against 
respondent no.I restricting him from publishing the newspaper and/or to 
take forcible possession of the Printing Press. Respondent No. I also filed 
B 
a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and also an C 
application for grant of interim injunction. The Court disposed of both 
the matters by a common order and directed to maintain status quo with 
further directions to the parties not to interfere in the business affairs of 
others. Aggrieved, both the parties preferred appeals. High Court allowed 
the appeal of Respondent No.I and dismissed the other appeals. Hence 
the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When a disputed question as regard the right of one 
partner against the other to file a declaration in terms of the provisions 
D 
of the Companies Act had arisen for consideration, the High Court was E 
not correct in issuing a subsequent direction in the review petition. The 
conflicting rights of the parties were required to be determined in 
accordance w:th !aw by the statutory authority. Such a dispute 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. F 
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. Thus, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.