{"id":217212,"date":"2003-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003"},"modified":"2015-04-01T01:28:26","modified_gmt":"2015-03-31T19:58:26","slug":"dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji., S.B. Sinha, [Ar Lakshmanan.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4774-76 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nDwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. And Another\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nRamesh Chandra Agarwala and Others\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/07\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nCJI., S.B. Sinha & [AR Lakshmanan.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
W I T H<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4777-78 OF 1996<\/p>\n
SINHA, S.B. :\n<\/p>\n
These appeals involving identical questions of law and facts were <\/p>\n
taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common <\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 4774-76 of 1996 arise out of the judgments and <\/p>\n
orders dated 12.3.1993 and 18.3.1993 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the <\/p>\n
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1654, 1727 and <\/p>\n
1728 of 1991; wherein the legality\/validity of three orders passed on <\/p>\n
29.5.1991 by the Press and Registration Board purported to be in exercise of <\/p>\n
its jurisdiction under Section 8-C of the Press and Registration of Books <\/p>\n
Act, 1867 (for short ‘the Act) were questioned by the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
herein.\n<\/p>\n
  Civil Appeal Nos. 4777-78 of 1996 arise out of the judgment and <\/p>\n
order dated 29.6.1991 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh <\/p>\n
High Court arising out of Misc. Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 1988. <\/p>\n
 \tFactual matrix of the matter, shortly stated is as under:<\/p>\n
 Ramesh Chander Agarwal s\/o late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, a partner <\/p>\n
of  M\/s Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and Brothers allegedly upon taking <\/p>\n
advantage of his father’s ill-health made an attempt to create  a lease in <\/p>\n
relation to the right to publish Dainik Bhaskar from  Bhopal.  According to <\/p>\n
late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, to the best of his knowledge, he did not sign <\/p>\n
the said document dated 13.4.1984 and in any event the same was meant to <\/p>\n
be applicable only for Bhopal and not for any other place.  On 13.4.1985, a <\/p>\n
partition\/family settlement deed was prepared wherein late Dwarka Prasad  <\/p>\n
Agarwal was not a signatory.  Allegedly, Bishambhar Dayal also did not <\/p>\n
agree  to   the  said   settlement  and  did  not  sign  the  said purported deed  <\/p>\n
of  family settlement.\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Hemlata Agarwal, eldest daughter of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal <\/p>\n
through his second wife, was made a Joint Managing Director of Bhaskar <\/p>\n
Publications and Allied Industries.  Ramesh Chander Agarwal being <\/p>\n
intrigued thereby tried to increase the equity shares of the company to such <\/p>\n
an extent that he gets majority in the equity shares purported to be in total <\/p>\n
disregard and violation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.  The <\/p>\n
said respondent also took alleged forcible possession of the Printing Press on <\/p>\n
3.7.1987 which had been leased out by M\/s Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and <\/p>\n
Brothers (the Firm) to M\/s Bhaskar Publications and Allied Industries <\/p>\n
Private Limited.  Allegedly, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and his two <\/p>\n
daughters were also physically assaulted by the first respondent leading to <\/p>\n
initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal <\/p>\n
Procedure.   In the said proceedings, the Executive Magistrate directed the <\/p>\n
police to open  the locks put in the premises of the printing press in presence <\/p>\n
of both the  parties.  However, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was not <\/p>\n
permitted to run the said printing press.\n<\/p>\n
  Thereafter, Ramesh Chander Agarwal filed a declaration before the <\/p>\n
District Magistrate, Jabalpur, wherein he allegedly accepted the partnership <\/p>\n
of M\/s Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and others as owners of the newspaper <\/p>\n
Dainik Bhaskar.  In terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Press and <\/p>\n
Registration of Books Act read with the rules framed  thereunder, <\/p>\n
declarations are required to be filed by the owner as also the printer(s) and <\/p>\n
publisher(s) thereof.  Six declarations were filed; three each by Respondent <\/p>\n
No.2 on the purported authority of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and three by <\/p>\n
the Respondent No.1.  Objections to the said declarations were filed by late <\/p>\n
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal before the appropriate authority.  <\/p>\n
By an order dated 6.6.1988, the District Magistrate, Gwalior, in <\/p>\n
exercise of his power under Section  8-B of the Act cancelled the said <\/p>\n
declarations dated 11.3.1985 filed by Respondent No.1.  He preferred an <\/p>\n
appeal thereagainst before the Press and Registration Appellate Board, but <\/p>\n
the same was ultimately withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
He in the meanwhile filed a writ petition before the High Court for <\/p>\n
stay of the proceedings before the District Magistrate.  Although an order of <\/p>\n
stay was passed therein but before the same could be communicated the <\/p>\n
aforementioned order dated 6.6.1988 was passed.  Ramesh Chander <\/p>\n
Agarwal, Respondent No.1, then filed another writ petition against the said <\/p>\n
order dated 6.6.1988 before the High Court but the same was withdrawn on <\/p>\n
the ground that he had in the meanwhile availed alternative remedy of  filing <\/p>\n
an appeal against the same order.  During the pendency of the said appeal <\/p>\n
before the Board, yet another writ petition was filed by the first respondent <\/p>\n
marked as Writ Petition No.798 of 1988 praying therein for quashing of the <\/p>\n
order dated 6.6.1988 whereby the declarations were directed to be filed. <\/p>\n
 The said appeals filed by Ramesh Chandra Agarwal were dismissed <\/p>\n
by the Appellate Board on 29.5.1991 holding as under :<\/p>\n
“(a) \tThe document at the top portion is pasted <\/p>\n
with thick    opaque white paper slips from <\/p>\n
both sides, perhaps to cover up and make <\/p>\n
unreasonable something which was written <\/p>\n
or printed under these slips;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tBelow the seal of the Deputy Collector and <\/p>\n
Executive Magistrate, Bhopal (party super-<\/p>\n
imposed) appears a somewhat blurred <\/p>\n
impressed of the seal of the Executive <\/p>\n
Magistrate, Gwalior;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tThe printed proforma of A1 is patently of <\/p>\n
Bhopal.  That proforma does not tally with <\/p>\n
the printed form produced by the Appellant <\/p>\n
with his application.\n<\/p>\n
Annexure A-1, is only a photocopy of the <\/p>\n
original, in the absence of which, the true <\/p>\n
effect of these suspicious circumstances (a) <\/p>\n
to (c) cannot be correctly assessed.\n<\/p>\n
However, the appellant admits that the <\/p>\n
photocopy of the declaration A-1 was <\/p>\n
presented by Devinder Tiwari not personally <\/p>\n
by him (appellant).  This Devinder Tiwari <\/p>\n
who, according to the appellant, as a <\/p>\n
Director of the Company did not file any <\/p>\n
letter of authority on behalf of the Company, <\/p>\n
or even from the appellant, to explain why <\/p>\n
the declaration was not presented in person <\/p>\n
by the appellant”.\n<\/p>\n
xxx\txxx\txxx\txxx\txxx<\/p>\n
“Nevertheless, there is no reason to differ <\/p>\n
from the finding of the District Magistrate, <\/p>\n
that Shri S.C. Shukla (Deputy Collector) <\/p>\n
Executive Magistrate, not being a District, <\/p>\n
Presidency or Sub-Divisional Magistrate <\/p>\n
was not competent, in view of Section 5(2) <\/p>\n
of the Act, to entertain and authenticate the <\/p>\n
declaration dated 11.3.1985, filed by the <\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
For all the reasons aforesaid, we would <\/p>\n
uphold the order dated 6.6.88 of the District <\/p>\n
Magistrate, Gwalior and dismiss the Appeal <\/p>\n
No.III filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal.”\n<\/p>\n
A writ petition was filed by Ramesh Chander Agarwal thereagainst.  <\/p>\n
Similar writ petitions came to be filed in relation to the orders passed in <\/p>\n
respect of other declarations.\n<\/p>\n
 By reason of the impugned order dated 12.3.1993, the order of the <\/p>\n
Appellate Board dated 29.5.1991 as also that of the District Magistrate, <\/p>\n
Gwalior, dated 6.6.1988 were quashed and the Appellate Board was  <\/p>\n
directed to consider the matter afresh within a period of three months.   <\/p>\n
Strangely enough, however, the same learned Judge on a review application <\/p>\n
filed by the first respondent herein by an order dated 18.3.1993 directed that <\/p>\n
the inquiry by the District Magistrate should be deferred if an application is <\/p>\n
filed  before  him  till  the  final outcome of  the  civil  litigations  by the <\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
Late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, alleging his alleged illegal <\/p>\n
dispossession from the printing press, filed a suit for eviction and permanent <\/p>\n
injunction in the court of A.D.J., Gwalior, which was registered as Suit <\/p>\n
No.1-A of 1988.  An application for grant of injunction in terms of Order 39, <\/p>\n
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed wherein a prayer was <\/p>\n
made for grant of temporary injunction  against  Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
restraining him from publishing the newspaper illegally and furthermore not <\/p>\n
to indulge in false propaganda and\/or to take forcible possession of the <\/p>\n
printing press.  Respondent No.1, Ramesh Chander Agarwala also filed a <\/p>\n
suit against late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal praying therein for a permanent <\/p>\n
injunction restraining  him from interfering with the working of the press at <\/p>\n
Gwalior and not to take possession thereof.  He also filed an application for <\/p>\n
grant of interim injunction in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code  <\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
 The First Additional District and Sessions Judge before whom the <\/p>\n
matters were pending, disposed of both the applications by a common order <\/p>\n
dated 28.5.1988.  The court directed maintenance of status quo by the parties <\/p>\n
and further directed that Ramesh Chander Agarwal would not interfere with <\/p>\n
the working of late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal in the matter of managing the <\/p>\n
affairs of the company.  However, in his order relating to the application <\/p>\n
filed for injunction in Suit No.2-A of 1988 of Respondent No.1, the court  <\/p>\n
directed the original appellant, late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal not to interfere <\/p>\n
in the printing and publishing of the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar from <\/p>\n
Gwalior.\n<\/p>\n
Both the parties preferred appeals before the High Court against the <\/p>\n
said orders which were marked as M.A. No.60 of 1988 and M.A. No.61 of <\/p>\n
1988.  The High Court allowed the appeal preferred by Ramesh Chander <\/p>\n
Agarwal and dismissed Appeal No.61 of 1988 filed by late Dwarka Prasad <\/p>\n
Agarwal holding that the suit for temporary injunction was barred under <\/p>\n
Section 10 of the Companies Act.\n<\/p>\n
These appeals were filed by Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (since deceased), <\/p>\n
questioning the legality\/correctness of the said orders.<\/p>\n
The   questions, in the aforementioned factual backdrop, which  arise <\/p>\n
for consideration in these appeals are :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1)\tWhether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that <\/p>\n
its earlier direction contained in order dated 12.3.1993 directing <\/p>\n
the Appellate Board to dispose of the appeal within three <\/p>\n
months need not be adhered to,  if Ramesh Chander Agarwal <\/p>\n
files an application for stay of the inquiry by the District <\/p>\n
Magistrate during the pendency of the civil suit?<\/p>\n
2)\tWhether the civil  court had  any jurisdiction to entertain the <\/p>\n
suit ?\n<\/p>\n
Re: Question No.1 :\n<\/p>\n
At the outset, we may observe that when a disputed question as regard <\/p>\n
the right of one partner against the other to file a declaration in terms of the <\/p>\n
provisions of the Act had arisen for consideration, the High Court was not <\/p>\n
correct in issuing a subsequent direction in the review petition.  Such a <\/p>\n
jurisdiction the High Court did not have.  The conflicting rights of the <\/p>\n
parties were required to be determined in accordance with law by the <\/p>\n
statutory authority.  Such a dispute, it goes without saying, should be <\/p>\n
determined as expeditiously as possible inasmuch as  the dispute involved <\/p>\n
rival claims of the parties to the lis to run and manage  newspaper business.  <\/p>\n
In any event, while directing the statutory authority to dispose of the matter <\/p>\n
in accordance with law; it does not stand to any reason as to why a party to <\/p>\n
the lis was given such liberty so as to file an application for stay of inquiry <\/p>\n
by the District Magistrate till the disposal of the civil suit particularly when <\/p>\n
the High Court itself was of the opinion that the suit was not maintainable.  <\/p>\n
We fail to see any reason as to why one party to the lis should be given <\/p>\n
unfair advantage over another in the matter of enforcement of statutory <\/p>\n
rights under the said Act. The orders of the High Court   are, thus,  <\/p>\n
absolutely contradictory to and inconsistent with each other, and do not <\/p>\n
stand a moment’s scrutiny.  The impugned  orders are, therefore, set aside <\/p>\n
with a direction to the Appellate Board to hear out and dispose of the appeal <\/p>\n
as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of <\/p>\n
communication of this order.  It would be open to the Appellate Board to <\/p>\n
consider the question of adequately compensating the appellants herein on <\/p>\n
monetary terms in the event it comes to the conclusion that the appeal was <\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Re: Question No.2 :\n<\/p>\n
Sections 9 and 10 of the Companies Act are as under :<\/p>\n
\t“Act to override memorandum, articles etc.<\/p>\n
9.  \tSave as otherwise expressly provided in the Act \u2013<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe provisions of this Act shall have effect <\/p>\n
notwithstanding anything to the contrary <\/p>\n
contained in the memorandum or articles of <\/p>\n
a company, or in any agreement executed by <\/p>\n
it, or in any resolution passed by the <\/p>\n
company in general meeting or by its Board <\/p>\n
of directors, whether the same be registered, <\/p>\n
executed or passed, as the case may be, <\/p>\n
before or after the commencement of this <\/p>\n
Act; and<\/p>\n
(b)\tany provision contained in the <\/p>\n
memorandum, articles, agreement  or <\/p>\n
resolution aforesaid shall, to the extent to <\/p>\n
which it is repugnant to the provisions of <\/p>\n
this Act, become or be void, as the case may <\/p>\n
be.”\n<\/p>\n
“Jurisdiction of Courts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.\t(1)\tThe High Court having jurisdiction <\/p>\n
under this Act shall be \u2013<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe High Court having jurisdiction in <\/p>\n
relation to the place at which the registered <\/p>\n
office of the company concerned is situate, <\/p>\n
except to the extent to which jurisdiction has <\/p>\n
been conferred on any District Court or <\/p>\n
District Courts subordinate to that High <\/p>\n
Court in pursuance of sub-section (2); and<\/p>\n
(b)\twhere jurisdiction has been so conferred, the <\/p>\n
District Court in regard to matters falling <\/p>\n
within the scope of the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
conferred, in respect of companies having <\/p>\n
their registered offices in the district.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe Central Government may, by <\/p>\n
notification in the Official Gazette and subject to <\/p>\n
such restrictions, limitations and conditions as it <\/p>\n
thinks fit, empower and District Court to exercise <\/p>\n
all or any of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act <\/p>\n
upon the Court, not being the jurisdiction <\/p>\n
conferred \u2013<\/p>\n
(a)\tin respect of companies generally, by <\/p>\n
sections 237, 391, 394, 395 and 397 to 407, <\/p>\n
both inclusive;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tin respect of companies with a paid-up share <\/p>\n
capital of not less than one lakh of rupees, <\/p>\n
by Part VII (sections 425 to 560) and the <\/p>\n
other provisions of this Act relating to the <\/p>\n
winding up of companies.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tFor the purposes of jurisdiction to wind up <\/p>\n
companies, the expression “registered office” <\/p>\n
means the place which has longest been the <\/p>\n
registered office of the company during the six <\/p>\n
months immediately preceding the presentation <\/p>\n
of the petition for winding up.”\n<\/p>\n
A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions leaves no manner of <\/p>\n
doubt that thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court has not been ousted.  The <\/p>\n
civil court, in the instant case, was concerned with the rival claims of the <\/p>\n
parties as to whether one party has illegally been dispossessed by the other <\/p>\n
or not.  Such a suit, apart from the general law, would also be maintainable <\/p>\n
in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.  In such matters the <\/p>\n
court would not be concerned even with the question as to title\/ownership of <\/p>\n
the property.\n<\/p>\n
In India, it is trite, that a person cannot be forcibly dispossessed <\/p>\n
except in accordance with law. [See Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by legal <\/p>\n
representatives vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and Others AIR 1968 SC 620 at Page <\/p>\n
622].\n<\/p>\n
In Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Another vs. Bodderpalli <\/p>\n
Lakshminarayana and Another<\/a> (1962) Supp. 1 SCR 8], this Court upon <\/p>\n
considering the  Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 observed that the <\/p>\n
matter relating to ownership of the press is a matter of general law and the <\/p>\n
Court, thus,  must follow that law.  It was observed that a declared keeper of <\/p>\n
the press is not necessarily the owner thereof so as to be able to confer title <\/p>\n
to the press upon another.\n<\/p>\n
The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not <\/p>\n
a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act.  Section 9 of the Code <\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all <\/p>\n
dispute of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either <\/p>\n
expressly or by necessary implication.  Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is <\/p>\n
not to be readily inferred.  A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of civil <\/p>\n
court requires strict interpretation.  The court, it is well-settled, would <\/p>\n
normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of <\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the civil court.  The burden of proof in this behalf shall be on <\/p>\n
the party who asserts that the civil court’s jurisdiction is ousted. [See  <\/p>\n
Sahebgouda (dead) by Lrs. and Others vs. Ogeppa and Others<\/a> [2003 (3) <\/p>\n
Supreme 13].  Even otherwise, the civil court’s jurisdiction is not completely <\/p>\n
ousted under the Companies Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
  In R. Prakasam vs. Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam [1980 <\/p>\n
(50) CC 611], it has been held that :\n<\/p>\n
“\u2026The purpose of  s.2(11) read with s.10 is only <\/p>\n
to enable the shareholders to decide as to which <\/p>\n
court they should approach for remedy, in respect <\/p>\n
of that particular matter.  It is difficult to construe <\/p>\n
the definition clause as one conferring jurisdiction, <\/p>\n
exclusive or otherwise; and even s.10 refers only <\/p>\n
to “the court having jurisdiction under this Act”, <\/p>\n
i.e., where such jurisdiction is conferred by the <\/p>\n
Act, as under Sections 107, 155, 163(2), 237, 397, <\/p>\n
425, etc.  In other words, the conferment of <\/p>\n
jurisdiction on “the court” is not under s. 10, but <\/p>\n
by other provisions of the Act like those <\/p>\n
enumerated above.  If, on the other hand, Sections <\/p>\n
2(11) and 10 are construed as not only nominating <\/p>\n
the courts, but also conferring exclusive <\/p>\n
jurisdiction on them, the specific provisions in the <\/p>\n
other sections  conferring jurisdiction on the court <\/p>\n
to deal with the matters covered by them will <\/p>\n
become redundant.  It may be that where the Act <\/p>\n
specifies the company court as the forum for <\/p>\n
complaint in respect of a particular matter, the <\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the civil court would stand ousted to <\/p>\n
that extent.  This depends, as already noticed, on <\/p>\n
the language of the particular provisions (like <\/p>\n
Sections 107, 155, 397 and others) and not on <\/p>\n
Sections 2(11) and 10\u2026”\n<\/p>\n
Yet again in Maharaja Exports and Another vs. Apparels Exports <\/p>\n
Promotional Council  [1986 (60) CC  353], the Delhi High Court held :<\/p>\n
“Under section 9 of the Code of Civil <\/p>\n
Procedure, 1908, civil courts have jurisdiction to <\/p>\n
try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of <\/p>\n
which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly <\/p>\n
barred.  Unlike some statutes, the Companies Act <\/p>\n
does not contain any express provision barring the <\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts in matters <\/p>\n
covered by the provisions of the Act.  In certain <\/p>\n
cases like winding-up of companies, the <\/p>\n
jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred.<\/p>\n
Where a person objects to the election of <\/p>\n
directors and claims a decree for a declaration that <\/p>\n
he was one of the directors, there is no provision <\/p>\n
which bars the civil court either expressly or by <\/p>\n
implication from trying such a suit”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the present suit also, besides other reliefs, <\/p>\n
the plaintiff has sought a declaration that all the 27 <\/p>\n
members of the existing executive committee are <\/p>\n
not entitled to hold the respective offices in view <\/p>\n
of the judgment of this court and further that the 18 <\/p>\n
members of the executive committee who have <\/p>\n
retired by rotation are not entitled to continue in <\/p>\n
office as members of the executive committee.  <\/p>\n
The judgment, referred to above, fairly and <\/p>\n
squarely applies to the facts of the present case and <\/p>\n
there is no reason to oust the jurisdiction of this <\/p>\n
court to entertain the present suit.  Under these <\/p>\n
circumstances, this issue is decided in favour of <\/p>\n
the plaintiff and against the defendants.” <\/p>\n
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the civil suit was <\/p>\n
maintainable.  In any event, we fail to understand and rather it is strange as <\/p>\n
to how the High Court while rejecting relief to the original plaintiff, (late <\/p>\n
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal), granted a similar relief in favour of the first <\/p>\n
respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
 The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside.  The matters are <\/p>\n
remitted to the Collector\/High Court for a fresh decision on merits as <\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible within a period of three months, keeping in view <\/p>\n
the observations made hereinabove. These appeals are allowed with costs.  <\/p>\n
Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003 Bench: Cji., S.B. Sinha, [Ar Lakshmanan. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4774-76 of 1996 PETITIONER: Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. And Another RESPONDENT: Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala and Others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/07\/2003 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3235,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003"},"wordCount":3235,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003","name":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. ... vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And ... on 7 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-31T19:58:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dwarka-prasad-agarwal-d-by-lrs-vs-ramesh-chandra-agarwala-and-on-7-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. … vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwala And … on 7 July, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}