1996 (12) TMI 298 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under section 630 of the Companies Act for illegal possession of company quarters.
2. Challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated November 5, 1996.
3. Legal contentions for leniency towards the petitioner.
4. Directive to Magistrates and Sessions Courts regarding cases under section 630 of the Companies Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a criminal revision application challenging the conviction and sentence under section 630 of the Companies Act for illegal possession of company quarters. The petitioner, an ex-employee of New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad, continued occupying company quarters even after resigning from his job, leading to a complaint and subsequent conviction. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, prompting this revision application. Both courts rightly upheld the conviction, as the petitioner had no legal entitlement to retain possession post-resignation.

The petitioner's advocate, despite failing to persuade the court on legal grounds, sought leniency for the petitioner. However, the court emphasized that in cases involving the rights of a needy employee versus an occupant whose entitlement has ceased, justice must favor the needy. The court rejected the plea for leniency, highlighting that no illegal protection should be afforded to those unlawfully occupying company premises. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding the rights of lawful occupants and not allowing undue extensions of illegal possession.

Furthermore, the court issued a directive to all Magistrates and Sessions Courts in the state handling cases under section 630 of the Companies Act. The directive aims to prevent unnecessary delays in trials or appeals that could disadvantage other company employees waiting for accommodation. The court emphasized the need to avoid prolonging cases under the guise of legal protection, ensuring timely resolution and fair treatment for all parties involved.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the criminal revision application but granted a brief extension for the petitioner to vacate the company premises by January 15, 1997, subject to filing an undertaking. The court warned of contempt of court consequences for any breach of the undertaking. The judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding legal rights, avoiding unjust extensions of possession, and ensuring timely resolution of cases under the Companies Act for the overall interest of justice.