9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case involving a company president under section 630 of the Companies Act.
In this case, the petitioner, who was the president of a company, was involved in a dispute regarding the return of a vehicle provided to him by the company. The company initiated proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act to direct the petitioner to return the vehicle. The petitioner raised two main contentions in his petition to quash the proceedings. Firstly, he argued that as the president, he did not fall under the definition of an employee or officer of the company as per the Act. Secondly, he contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, to conduct the enquiry. The court analyzed the term "officer" under the Act and referred to a previous judgment where it was held that even a director could be considered an officer of the company. The court concluded that the president, having assigned duties and responsibilities in the administration of the company, could be deemed an officer. Therefore, the first objection raised by the petitioner was dismissed. Regarding the jurisdiction issue, the court noted that the complaint did not specify where the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner, which is crucial for determining the court's jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of mentioning the place of cause of action in the complaint to establish jurisdiction. As the complaint lacked details regarding the place of cause of action, the court raised doubts about the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The court decided to give the respondent-company an opportunity to amend the complaint to include full details about the place of cause of action. The court rejected the petitioner's request to quash the proceedings entirely and instead allowed the respondent-company to amend the petition within two weeks. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file objections to the proposed amendment. The court dismissed the criminal original petition, subject to the respondent-company amending the complaint to specify the place of jurisdiction within the given timeframe.
|
