2001 (12) TMI 798 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and return of property under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Revisions and petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Execution of trial court orders.
4. Review of orders under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Jurisdiction of criminal courts versus civil courts.
6. Abuse of process of law and suppression of material facts.
7. Imposition of costs due to prolonged litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Return of Property under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The respondent company filed two complaints against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the conviction of the petitioner and the return of the company's property. The trial court convicted the petitioner in 1995, sentencing him to pay a fine and return the property. The petitioner's revisions before the sessions court were dismissed, and subsequent petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were also dismissed by the High Court.

2. Revisions and Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioner filed multiple petitions under Section 482, challenging the trial court's orders. The High Court dismissed these petitions, noting that they were unsustainable in law and an abuse of the court process. The court observed that the petitioner had repeatedly raised the same grounds, which had already been rejected by various judicial forums.

3. Execution of Trial Court Orders:
The respondent filed execution petitions to enforce the trial court's orders. The execution court directed the petitioner to hand over the motor vehicle and records to the complainant within one week, failing which he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner's revisions challenging these execution orders were also dismissed by the High Court.

4. Review of Orders under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioner filed a memo under Section 362, seeking a review of the trial court's orders based on a favorable civil court order. The High Court held that the criminal court's orders could not be reviewed under Section 362, as it only allows correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, which emphasized that once a judgment is signed, the court becomes functus officio and cannot alter or review it.

5. Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts versus Civil Courts:
The petitioner argued that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction due to pending civil court proceedings. The High Court rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra, which held that the filing of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court noted that the petitioner had schemingly filed the civil suit after the criminal proceedings had concluded.

6. Abuse of Process of Law and Suppression of Material Facts:
The High Court found that the petitioner had abused the process of law by filing multiple applications and suppressing material facts. The court observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the previous orders passed under Section 482, which had dismissed similar contentions. The court reiterated that the petitioner had not come with clean hands and had attempted to flout the orders of various courts.

7. Imposition of Costs Due to Prolonged Litigation:
The High Court noted the petitioner's conduct in dragging the matter for several years and abusing the court process. Consequently, the court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 in each petition, to be paid directly to the respondent within one month.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revisions and upheld the trial court's orders, directing the petitioner to comply with the order to return the company's property. The court emphasized that the criminal court's jurisdiction and orders could not be undermined by pending civil proceedings and that the petitioner's repeated attempts to challenge the orders constituted an abuse of the judicial process.

← Previous Next →