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 companyrectly assessed.
Civil Appeal Nos.
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.
According to late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, to the best of his knowledge, he did number sign the said document dated 13.4.1984 and in any event the same was meant to be applicable only for Bhopal and number for any other place.
Respondent No.1, Ramesh Chander Agarwala 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 number to take possession thereof.
He in the meanwhile filed a writ petition before the High Court for stay of the proceedings before the District Magistrate.
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.
The said appeals filed by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal were dismissed by the Appellate Board on 29.5.1991 holding as under The document at the top portion is pasted with thick opaque white paper slips from both sides, perhaps to companyer up and make unreasonable something which was written or printed under these slips Below the seal of the Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Bhopal party super imposed appears a somewhat blurred impressed of the seal of the Executive Magistrate, Gwalior The printed proforma of A1 is patently of Bhopal.
The First Additional District and Sessions Judge before whom the matters were pending, disposed of both the applications by a companymon order dated 28.5.1988.
Objections to the said declarations were filed by late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal before the appropriate authority.
Appeal Nos.
The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Ramesh Chander Agarwal and dismissed Appeal No.61 of 1988 filed by late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal holding that the suit for temporary injunction was barred under Section 10 of the Companies Act.
That proforma does number tally with the printed form produced by the Appellant with his application.
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.
Late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, alleging his alleged illegal dispossession from the printing press, filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction in the companyrt of A.D.J., Gwalior, which was registered as Suit No.1 A of 1988.
However, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was number permitted to run the said printing press.
However, the appellant admits that the photocopy of the declaration A 1 was presented by Devinder Tiwari number personally by him appellant .
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.
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.
However, in his order relating to the application filed for injunction in Suit No.2 A of 1988 of Respondent No.1, the companyrt directed the original appellant, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal number to interfere in the printing and publishing of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar from Gwalior.
Allegedly, Bishambhar Dayal also did number agree to the said settlement and did number sign the said purported deed of family settlement.
J U D G M E N T W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4777 78 OF 1996 SINHA, S.B. These appeals involving identical questions of law and facts were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
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 number to indulge in false propaganda and or to take forcible possession of the printing press.
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 companysider the matter afresh within a period of three months.
The companyrt directed maintenance of status quo by the parties and further directed that Ramesh Chander Agarwal would number interfere with the working of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal in the matter of managing the affairs of the companypany.
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.
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.
These appeals were filed by Dwarka Prasad Agarwal since deceased , questioning the legality companyrectness of the said orders.
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.
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.
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.
A writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal thereagainst.
Civil Appeal Nos.
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.
This Devinder Tiwari who, according to the appellant, as a Director of the Company did number file any letter of authority on behalf of the Company, or even from the appellant, to explain why the declaration was number presented in person by the appellant.
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.
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 fathers ill health made an attempt to create a lease in relation to the right to publish Dainik Bhaskar from Bhopal.
Similar writ petitions came to be filed in relation to the orders passed in respect of other declarations.
III filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal.
On 13.4.1985, a partition family settlement deed was prepared wherein late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was number a signatory.
He preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Press and Registration Appellate Board, but the same was ultimately withdrawn.
Although an order of stay was passed therein but before the same companyld be companymunicated the aforementioned order dated 6.6.1988 was passed.
For all the reasons aforesaid, we would uphold the order dated 6.6.88 of the District Magistrate, Gwalior and dismiss the Appeal No.
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 Petition 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 8 C of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 for short the Act were questioned by the Respondent No.1 herein.
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.
60 61 of 1988.
Ramesh Chander Agarwal being intrigued thereby tried to increase the equity shares of the companypany 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.
