9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 903 - HC - Companies LawIllegal and wrongful occupation of company s flat - Refusal to handover the vacant possession of flats - Offence punishable u/s 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that - In the case of Dharampal v. Smt. Ramshri 1993 (1) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Hon ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Learned Session Judge s powers under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and any one cannot avail of two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the Learned Sessions Judge under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. The facts of the present case do not warrant any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present petition is neither maintainable nor is there any merit in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on both counts, i.e., on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. - Keeping in view the age of the case and also the nature of the offence, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta is directed to dispose of this case finally as expeditiously as possible without giving any unnecessary adjournment.
Issues:
Application under Section 482 to quash order dated 26.08.2010 dismissing revision challenging order dated 23.06.2008 in connection with Case No.C/8660 of 2006 under Section 630 of Companies Act, 1956. Jurisdiction of the court, maintainability of the case, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., dismissal of the petition. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Maintainability The complaint was filed under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the accused/petitioner for wrongful occupation of company property. The accused challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, citing a Civil Suit in Mumbai over the same property with an existing injunction order. The accused argued that the Mumbai Civil Court's jurisdiction should prevail. However, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing both parties, upheld the jurisdiction and maintainability of the case. The accused's revision against this decision was also dismissed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge. The opposing party contended that the accused's Special Leave Petition to transfer the case to Mumbai was dismissed by the Supreme Court, indicating that the jurisdiction issue had been settled. The opposing party argued that the accused cannot re-agitate the jurisdiction matter through Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court noted the Supreme Court's dismissal of the transfer petition and held that the order was speaking and on merits, indicating finality on the jurisdiction issue. Issue 2: Interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Special Leave Petition was non-speaking and did not conclusively decide the jurisdiction issue. However, the court found that the petitioner's failure to annex crucial documents and the dismissal of the transfer petition by the Supreme Court were significant factors. The court cited precedents to establish that the petitioner cannot avail of multiple revision opportunities and that once a revision is dismissed, filing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred. The court emphasized that the petitioner's second revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit and maintainability. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on both counts, i.e., on maintainability and merits. Conclusion The court held that the petition was legally barred and lacked merit under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to the dismissal of the transfer petition by the Supreme Court and the petitioner's failure to provide essential documents. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the case by the Metropolitan Magistrate within three months. The petition was ultimately dismissed without any order as to costs, considering the age of the case and the nature of the offense.
|
