Kasturi Devi, however, was number sure that, she, having regard to her stand taken in the litigation, would be able to defend the action on behalf of her husband.
Some proceedings by way of Special Leave Application were also filed before this Court.
During pendency of the said writ proceedings, on 29.6.92 the petitioner therein, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal son of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Mahesh Prasad Agarwal along with their sons Kailash, Sudhir and Sanjay purported to have entered into a deed of settlement.
The said writ petition was marked as MP No.
4782 of 1996.
The said settlement was accepted and the writ petition was disposed of in terms thereof on 29.6.1992 which was also the date of filing of the companypromise memo.
Ltd. of which Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was the lifetime Managing Director and Chairman and therein Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal and his son, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal were shareholders and directors.
1 and 2 number to allow Respondent No.
57A of 1988, moved an application to the effect that pursuant to the companypromise the suit be dismissed.
The reliefs sought for in the writ petition primarily revolved round the order of authentication of the declaration made by one of the respondents in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
The properties of the aforementioned firm, including the goodwill and ownership of Dainik Bhaskar over different territories were distributed by M s. Writers Ltd. floated by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal amongst the three other partners, namely, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal and Mahesh Chand Agarwal to the exclusion of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, the 4th and the remaining partner.
The factual matrix involved in these matters may be numbericed in brief.
The said order dated 29.6.92 is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
An agreement recording terms of settlement between the parties on their private dispute was executed on 29.6.1992.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal having companye to learn the said order of RNI dated 3.9.1992 filed an application for review of the order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the High Court which was marked as MCC No.
The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have number only oversimplified the matter but seem to have gone on an errand, carried away by some need to balance hypothetical public interest, when the real and only question to be companysidered was as to whether the respondent Authorities are bound by the orders passed by the Court on the basis of the companypromise memorandum and whether the proposed move on their part did number companystitute flagrant violation of the orders of the Court very much binding on both the parties.
Several proceedings were also initiated before different forums with regard to publication of the said newspapers at different places.
7 d issue writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.
You are, therefore, requested that if you have any objection to this decision then you may approach the High Court at Jabalpur.
No writ was issued by the High Court in terms of the said order against the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur or any other authority.
477 of 1992.
7 to use the title Dainik Bhaskar for its publication c issue writ, order or direction directing the Respondents number to publish newspaper Dainik Bhaskar under the alleged title of Respondent No.
Some writ petitions were also filed by the parties before the High Court.
A printing press of which Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was the owner is said to have been transferred to the said companypany for the purpose of printing of the aforementioned newspaper.
74A of 1987, 75A of 1987, 57A of 1988, 22A of 1988, 99A of 1991 and Writ Petition, MP No.
The High Court was also required to address itself, more so while disposing of the review application, as to whether the purported settlement on the grounds raised by the appellants herein, was a lawful one.
3 to 7 to publish newspaper Dainik Bhaskar under the title of writers and publishers Private Limited e issue writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said purported companypromise, RNI altered the name of owner of title Dainik Bhaskar in his Register from the Firm to M s. Writers on or about 3.9.1992 stating This is to state that in accordance with the numberice issued on the above subject in the matter of ownership of Dainik Bhaskar, as per the decision in Case No.
Admittedly, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was number a signatory to the said agreement.
2 to exercise its authority number to allow Respondents No.
Both the wives of the said Dwarka Prasad Agarwal applied for substitution of their names in place of the deceased.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal filed Writ Petition No.
Another document also came to be executed on the same day, the genuineness whereof was also disputed, is an alleged deed of partition family settlement of the HUF in terms whereof the firms assets, several other properties, fixed deposits, money and business including those situated at Bombay, Delhi, Raipur, Indore, were divided between Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal, Mahesh Prasad Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal.
Several issues of grave importance were required to be addressed by the High Court.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal died during the pendency of these proceedings.
As Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was number a signatory thereto, he was number bound thereby.
Kishori Devi pressed her application.
Certain documents were allegedly created on 13th March, 1985 by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal for the said purpose one of them, being an Agreement of Sale alleged to have been entered by and between the Firm and a companypany called M s. Writers Publishers Pvt.
The firms assets were to be sold as per the alleged agreement dated 13.3.85 and divided as per alleged partition deed of 13.4.85 which had number been signed and accepted by Dwarka Parsad Agarwal, karta of HUF and the genuineness whereof was also the subject matter of dispute.
The order recording companypromise was legal as numberother party including the learned advocate of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal objected thereto.
Several other suits were filed by the parties at several places viz.
He had two wives, namely, Kasturidevi and Kishoridevi.
The said purported agreement was filed on the same day before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the petitioner therein alleging that he and the companytesting respondents had reached a full and final settlement of the disputes raised in the petition and other companynected matters pending before various companyrts and bodies and the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the said purported companyprehensive agreement.
Not only pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the Registrar of Newspapers, New Delhi, passed an order dated 3.9.1992 it was companystrued to be a judgment of the High Court which had been taken aid of by the respondents herein for the purpose of withdrawal of suits wherein various disputed questions of facts and law including the genuineness or otherwise of the agreements were in question and required adjudication.
The said review petition was dismissed by an order dated 13.11.1992 and the same is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
According to the appellants, in the Annual Reports of the RNI, the name of the said firm was shown as the owner of the said newspaper.
The application for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the said agreement as also the order of the High Court in M.P. No.802 of 1992 was passed on the same day.
802 of 1992 were filed by the parties, the disputes involved therein were sought to be resolved thereby which was impermissible in law.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal admittedly was a proforma respondent therein and although his rights as partner were directly affected thereby he was neither a party to the said settlement number a signatory to the said deed.
1 Sudhir Agarwal for printing and publishing newspaper under the name and style of Nav Bhaskar as void, illegal and number set in law.
J U D G M E N T with C.A. No.
The writ petition, in the factual matrix involved in the matter, companyld have been held to be maintainable only for that purpose and numberother.
74A of 1987 and 75A of 1987 in Bhopal by M s. Writers and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal for withdrawal thereof, whereupon the suits were dismissed.
The said Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was the karta of a larger HUF companysisting of himself and his partners.
Ltd., Bhopal, has become the owner of Dainik Bhaskar.
It is alleged that Ramesh Chandra Agarwal filed a Declaration on or about 13.10.84 along with an authority letter dated 10.1.83 from Dwarka Prasad Agarwal in respect of publication of Dainik Bhaskar at Indore for admitting him to be the owner of the newspaper and the companypany as a lessee.
The writ petition was number ready for hearing on the said date.
4783 of 1996.
It is number disputed that in the year 1982, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal suffered from a paralytic attack and was unable to attend to business actively.
Assuming that he had engaged an Advocate, keeping in view the fact that he was a proforma respondent therein, the said learned Advocate was merely required to watch the proceedings as numberrelief had been claimed against him.
He was also number put on numberice there about.
477 of 1992 and the companynected writ petition.
Each partner companytributed towards the capital of the Firm in shares to the extent of 25, 30, 30 and 15 respectively.
8 number to allow the Respondents No.
527 of 1993 B. SINHA, J Whether settlement of a private dispute between the parties to a writ proceeding is permissible in law, is the prime question involved in these batch of appeals which arise out of judgments and orders passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal also, who had filed suit No.
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Honble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.
The companysequence of recording of the said companypromise was tell tale.
That the Honble Court be further pleased to declare by an appropriate writ that if a power is companyferred on District Magistrate Additional District Magistrate to grant declaration of title of same or similar nature, such a power cannot be exercised by the District Magistrate Additional District Magistrate till an Appellate Authority is companystituted to be able to oversee and review the exercise of powers by the District Magistrate Additional District Magistrate.
Allegedly, the firm transferred the business of publication of Dainik Bhaskar at Gwalior to a newly incorporated companypany, M s. Bhaskar Publication and Allied Industries Pvt.
Ltd., the genuineness or otherwise of which was the subject matter of a suit being suit No.
802 of 1992 wherein the following reliefs were claimed That the Honble Court be pleased to declare by an appropriate writ, order or direction that the power companyferred on the District Magistrate Additional District Magistrate under Section 4 and 6 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, in case of declarations submitted for same or similar titles as ultra vires to the petitioners right under Article 14, 19 1 a and g of the Constitution of India.
This plea was also accepted.
1182/92 dated 29.6.92 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur and agreement dated 19.6.92 M s. Writer Publishers Pvt.
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was made a proforma respondent herein.
The High Court in its order dated 13.11.92 refusing to review its earlier order dated 3.9.92 inter alia held The agreement in question is a lawful one.
527 of 1993 in this Court questioning the aforementioned order dated 3.9.92 passed by RNI wherein inter alia the following reliefs were prayed for a issue writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 3rd September, 1992 whereby the Registrar, Newspapers has changed the name of the owner of the title Dainik Bhaskar from M s. P. Agarwal and Brothers to M s. Writers and Publishers Private Limited b issue writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.
By reason of the said purported companypromise, the firm was sought to be dissolved of which Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was a partner.
Prior to the companystitution of the Firm, a newspaper known as Dainik Bhaskar was being published by Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and his name was recorded in the Registrar of Newspapers for India for short RNI .
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order dated 29.6.1992 recording the purported settlement applications were filed in Suit No.
4783 of 1996 and W.P. C No.
Cost of proceedings of this petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
The rival companytentions on substitution by the two wives of Late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal came to be companysidered by this Court.
It may, however, be numbericed that Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal, questioning the authentication made by the Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur of the Declaration filed by Sudhir Agarwal, son of Ramesh Chandra Agarwal for newspaper Nav Bhaskar as regard its publication from Jabalpur as also a purported order passed thereupon by the said authority on 3.12.91 filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Jabalpur, Bhopal, Raipur, Gwalior, etc.
The number provision of Appellate power violates the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19 1 a and g of the Constitution of India.
802 of 1992 and M.C.C. No.
3 to 7 to publish newspaper Dainik Bhaskar in companytravention of the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 and f pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It may number be necessary to delve deep into the effect and purport of the said disputes for answering the issue involved in these matters, except a few.
A partnership firm known as M s. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Brothers The firm was companystituted with Dwarka Prasad Agarwal since deceased , Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal since deceased , Mahesh Prasad Aggarwal all sons of Keshav Dev Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, son of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal in the year 1972 as partners thereof.
57A of 1988.
While passing the said order, however, an observation was made that the said question shall be finally decided at the time of hearing.
Upon companysideration of the said question, this Court directed Kasturi Devi to be impleaded as a respondent in the proceeding whereas Kishori Devi and her daughters Hemlata and Anuradha were directed to be substituted in place of Late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal.
