9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court: The petitioner argued that the courts in Delhi do not have jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, as the alleged wrongful acts occurred at Mandi Govind Garh, Punjab. The respondent contended that since the company's head office is in Delhi, the courts in Delhi have jurisdiction under Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment highlighted that under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence should be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The court noted that the alleged wrongful acts, including the removal of books of account, machinery, and gas cylinders, occurred at Mandi Govind Garh. Therefore, the courts at Mandi Govind Garh have jurisdiction. The mere location of the company's head office in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction to the courts in Delhi. 2. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act: Section 630(1) of the Companies Act penalizes any officer or employee of a company who wrongfully obtains possession of any property of the company or wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to unauthorized purposes. The petitioner was accused of removing books of account, machinery parts, and gas cylinders from the factory premises without authority and withdrawing large amounts from the company accounts. The court determined that the offence under Section 630(1) is complete the moment a person wrongfully withholds or misapplies the company property. The accountability or return of the property is not an ingredient for the commission of the offence under Section 630(1). Thus, the alleged wrongful acts by the petitioner at Mandi Govind Garh constitute the offence under Section 630(1). 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act: The judgment referred to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Companies Act to determine the place of trial and jurisdiction. Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the trial of offences of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or where any part of the property was received or retained. The court also referred to Section 2(11) and Section 10 of the Companies Act, which define the jurisdiction of courts concerning company matters. The High Court has jurisdiction except where jurisdiction is conferred on any district court subordinate to the High Court. No procedure is provided under the Companies Act for the trial of an offence by a criminal court, so the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the place of trial for an offence under Section 630 of the Act. The court concluded that the complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, does not disclose any material act committed by the petitioner within its jurisdiction. The mere fact of the head office being situated in Delhi does not give jurisdiction to the said court to proceed with the complaint. The return of the property is not an ingredient of the offence under Section 630 of the Act, and jurisdiction about the return of the property vests with the High Court as provided under Section 10 of the Act. Conclusion: The complaint, Gopal Gases Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 38, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi, through its director, Panna Lal Bhatia v. Shri Ramesh G. Bhatia, under Section 630 of the Companies Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, stands quashed. The courts at Mandi Govind Garh have jurisdiction to try the complaint as the alleged wrongful acts occurred there.
|
