1999 (7) TMI 614 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner to the respondent was not accepted, leading to no possibility of settlement.
2. Revision application filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order passed convicting the petitioner of an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Examination of evidence and legal arguments presented in the case, including references to relevant case laws.
4. Analysis of the evidence presented, including witness testimony, documents, and agreements related to the possession of a flat by the accused.
5. Review of the judgments passed by the trial court and the appellate court, confirming the conviction of the accused under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
6. Evaluation of the documents on record, such as the allotment letter of the flat and the undertaking by the accused to hand over possession of the flat to the company.
7. Dismissal of the revision application by the High Court based on the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the lack of grounds for interference in the judgments.
8. Consideration of the request for a stay of the order by the petitioner, opposed by the respondent, leading to a temporary stay granted until a specified date for the petitioner to challenge the order in the Apex Court.

The High Court of Bombay heard a matter involving a settlement proposal submitted by the petitioner to the respondent, which was not accepted, resulting in no possibility of settlement. The petitioner had filed a revision application challenging a judgment convicting the petitioner of an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court examined the evidence, including witness testimony and documents, related to the possession of a flat by the accused. The judgments of the trial court and the appellate court were reviewed, confirming the conviction of the accused. The High Court evaluated the documents on record, like the allotment letter and the accused's undertaking to hand over possession of the flat. Ultimately, the revision application was dismissed by the High Court due to the concurrent findings of the lower courts. A temporary stay of the order was granted to allow the petitioner time to challenge the decision in the Apex Court.