9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Accused facing prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act for withholding premises post-retirement. Jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on orders from a civil court. Analysis: The petitioners, former employees accused of wrongfully withholding premises post-retirement, sought to quash criminal proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act. They argued that civil court orders for maintaining status quo should overrule criminal prosecution. However, the court delved into the facts, emphasizing that the premises belonged to the respondent, and the petitioners occupied them as a service benefit. Upon retirement, they were obligated to vacate the premises. The court clarified that no landlord-tenant relationship existed. The court noted that the civil court might not have been fully informed of this aspect, leading to the misunderstanding. The court highlighted that withholding premises after employment cessation constituted an offense under section 630 of the Companies Act. The judgment referenced a similar case where the Bombay High Court held that post-employment, claiming tenancy rights over company premises was invalid. The court agreed with this stance, emphasizing that the offense of wrongful withholding of premises under section 630 was valid even amidst civil litigation. The court dismissed the petitions at the admission stage, emphasizing the legal obligation to vacate premises post-retirement.
|
