2000 (12) TMI 838 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Violation of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the accused by wrongfully withholding company property post-termination of service.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the accused under section 630 of the Companies Act, alleging that the accused, appointed as an assistant manager by a public limited company, wrongfully withheld possession of a bungalow provided by the company after termination of service. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused, who appeared through his advocate. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for direction to vacate the bungalow, which was rejected by the Magistrate, leading to the petitioner seeking revision of the order.

The petitioner argued that post-termination, the accused had no right to occupy the company property and highlighted that the accused's civil suit challenging the termination was dismissed by the High Court. The key question was whether section 630(2) could be invoked during the prosecution to regain company property. Citing precedents, the petitioner contended that the company's right to retrieve the property was clear, and the accused's attempts to delay proceedings were evident from repeated adjournment requests and failure to execute a warrant of arrest.

Considering the circumstances and legal precedents, the Court invoked its inherent power under section 482 to direct the accused to vacate the bungalow within one month in favor of the petitioner-company. The Magistrate was instructed to expedite the trial of the criminal case. The Court held that this was a suitable case for such intervention, setting aside the previous order rejecting the application and emphasizing the company's explicit right to reclaim its property even before the criminal case's formal conclusion.