The takeover battle for Dayton Hudson Corp. moved to the courts yesterday as Dart Group Corp. and Dayton Hudson filed lawsuits against each other over Dart's unsolicited $6.3 billion bid for the Minneapolis retailer.

Dayton Hudson, charging the Landover company with illegally manipulating the company's stock, is seeking a federal court injunction to force Dart to get rid of all of its 4.6 million shares -- or 4.9 percent -- of Dayton Hudson stock.

Dayton Hudson -- the nation's sixth-largest department-store operator -- also sought an injunction to bar Dart and its owners, Washington's Haft family, from "taking or attempting to take any steps to attempt to acquire control of Dayton Hudson or inducing others to do so."

Meanwhile, a Dart affiliate -- Madison Partnership -- sued Dayton Hudson to force the retailer to give Dart complete shareholder information. Dart said Dayton Hudson "has refused to provide complete information" that the company needs to solicit proxies to call a shareholders meeting.

Dart officials have said they want shareholders to vote on ousting Dayton Hudson's board of directors, who twice in the past month have rejected Dart's takeover offers.

Dart officials yesterday called Dayton Hudson's suit "frivolous and without merit. We have complied with all applicable laws."

Dayton Hudson officials called Dart's suit "without merit," saying they gave Dart a shareholder list several days ago.

Such lawsuits are common in takeover fights. In this case, they escalate the war of words between the two firms that has been going on since early summer when Herbert Haft and his son Robert, who head Dart Group, first expressed interest in Dayton Hudson.

Dart has been trying to buy a major retail firm for three years but has been unsuccessful.

Nonetheless, it has earned as much as $200 million from selling its stakes in the takeover targets when the bids failed.

According to Dayton Hudson's lawsuit, Dart Group, which "in recent years has reaped millions of dollars in short-term stock profits by employing illegal destabilizing tactics against other major retailers, now seeks to do the same thing to Dayton Hudson. ... {It has} accumulated substantial blocks of stock in publicly traded corporations and, thereafter, made false and misleading disclosures with respect to those purchases in order to reap quick arbitrage profits, either by reselling their shares to the target company or by selling their shares into a market inflated by their unlawful conduct."

Dayton Hudson also charges that the Hafts -- whom it calls "near recluses" for their reluctance to speak out publicly until recently -- do not have adequate financing to carry out its $6.3 billion bid for the retailer. What's more, it added, "under no circumstances could Dart acquire Dayton Hudson without immediately busting up Dayton Hudson to repay acquisition debt, and that {the Hafts} in fact anticipated that Dayton Hudson would be busted up if they were to obtain control."

In making the bid for Dayton Hudson, the Hafts promised that if the shareholders rejected their offer, they would donate their profits from the company's stock to Minnesota charities.

"It would be impossible for Dart to comply with this purported promise because ... Dart ... entered into a contract with their investment banker, Paine Webber Inc., whereby they agreed to pay to Paine Webber 15 percent of their net profits if their Dayton Hudson shares were disposed of without an acquisition of Dayton Hudson," the company's lawsuit added.