TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retation. 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. Even otherwise, the civil court s jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956. 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. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4774-4778 OF 1996 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2003 - V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA AND A.R. LAKSHMANAN, JJ. Sunil Gupta, S.K. Gambhir, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, P.P. Rao, R.C. Srivastava, TLV Iyer, Kailash Vasdev, 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. Shirin Khajuria (N.P.), Gaurab Banerjee, Niraj Sharma, Ankur Modi, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, G.D. Upadhyay, R.D. Upadhyay for the Appearing Party. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. - These appeals involving identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aulted 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 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. 7. By an order dated 6-6-1988, the District Magistrate, Gwalior, in exercise of his power under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor) 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 6-6-1988 of the District Magistrate, Gwalior and dismiss the appeal No. III filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal." 10. A writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal thereagainst. Similar writ petitions came to be 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 Dwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3-1993 directing the Appellate Board to dispose of the appeal within three months need not be adhered to, if Ramesh Chander Agarwal files an application for stay of the inquiry by the District Magistrate during the pendency of the civil suit ? (2)Whether the civil court had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? Re : Question No. 1 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as it thinks fit, empower any District Court to exercise all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act upon the Court, not being the jurisdiction conferred ( a )in respect of companies generally, by sections 237, 391, 394, 395 and 397 to 407, both inclusive; ( b )in respect of companies with a paid-up share capital of not less than one lakh of rupees, by Part VII (sections 425 to 560) and the other provisions of this Act relating to the winding up of companies. (3) For the purposes of jurisdiction to wind up companies, the expression registered office means the place which has longest been the registered office of the company during the six months immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for winding up." 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erment of jurisdiction on the court is not under section 10, but by other provisions of the Act like those enumerated above. If, on the other hand, sections 2( 11 ) and 10 are construed as not only nominating the courts, but also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on them, the specific provisions in the other sections conferring jurisdiction on the court to deal with the matters covered by them will become redundant. It may be that where the Act specifies the company court as the forum for complaint in respect of a particular matter, the jurisdiction of the civil court would stand ousted to that extent. This depends, as already noticed, on the language of the particular provisions (like sections 107, 155, 397 and others) and not on sections 2( 11 ) and 10. . . ." (p. 621) 23. Yet again in Maharaja Exports v. Apparels Exports Promotional Council [1986] 60 Comp. Cas. 353 , the Delhi High Court held : " Under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Unlike some statutes, the Companies Act does not contain any express provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
