1992 (9) TMI 306 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court to try the case under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court to Try the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceeding under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, arguing that the Calcutta court lacks jurisdiction. The complaint was lodged by the company against the petitioner, alleging wrongful withholding of the company's premises in New Delhi after the termination of his employment.

The court examined whether the Calcutta court had jurisdiction to try the case. The petitioner argued that his employment and subsequent actions related to the premises were centered in New Delhi, not Calcutta. The company contended that major decisions, including employment and termination, were made at its registered office in Calcutta, and thus, the Calcutta court had jurisdiction.

The court referred to Section 630 of the Companies Act, which penalizes wrongful withholding of company property. The primary question was whether the wrongful withholding of the premises in New Delhi could be tried in Calcutta based on the company's administrative activities being conducted from Calcutta.

The court analyzed previous judgments, including the case of *Satyanath (T. S.) v. J. Thomas and Co.*, where it was observed that the place of wrongful withholding is crucial for determining jurisdiction. The court noted that the Bombay High Court, in *Dr. Hirak Ghosh v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.*, emphasized that the essence of the offence is the wrongful withholding of property, which occurs at the location of the property.

The court concluded that the wrongful withholding of the premises in New Delhi could not be tried in Calcutta merely because the company's head office was in Calcutta. The delivery of possession of immovable property must occur at the location of the property, and thus, the offence is committed at the situs of the property.

Therefore, the court held that the Calcutta court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The proceedings in the Metropolitan Magistrate's court in Calcutta were quashed, and the revisional application was disposed of accordingly.