9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 458 - HC - Companies LawRejection of prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of the premises/flat - Sub-Section (2) of the Section 452 of Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - The scheme referred to, the quarter/premises being part of the entitlement in terms of service and the settled principles of law which have spelt out the proposition regarding the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 452 of the Companies Act (earlier Sub-Section (2) of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956), I am of the opinion that the accused/opposite party is unnecessarily dragging the issue relating to vacating the quarter/premises belonging to the company on different pretext. In view of the conduct of the accused/opposite party and the provisions of law along with the settled principles, it can be held that the order dated 17- 4-2019 passed by the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur is not in consonance with the principles of law and is liable to be set aside. This Court ordinarily would have directed the accused/opposite party to vacate the quarter being No. LR-153, ABL Township, Durgapur- 713206 immediately, however, having regard to the present socio economic conditions because of the pandemic which has spread world wide, this Court feels that the accused/opposite party must be granted a breathing time of one year, accordingly the accused/opposite party would be entitled to retain the aforesaid quarter till 30th June, 2021.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. 2. Validity of the scheme for utilization of company’s houses. 3. Entitlement of the accused to retain the company’s quarter post-superannuation. 4. The legal principle regarding the wrongful withholding of company property. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013: The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging that the accused wrongfully withheld the company’s property after superannuation. The petitioner sought a court order for the accused to vacate the quarter. The ACJM, Durgapur, dismissed the application, stating that the issues raised could not be decided at the threshold but only at the conclusion of the trial. The petitioner argued that the accused was unlawfully occupying the quarter post-retirement and relied on precedents like Tata Tea vs. Fazlur Rahman and Metal Box India vs. State of W.B., which support the eviction of employees wrongfully withholding company property under similar provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Validity of the scheme for utilization of company’s houses: The accused argued that a scheme introduced by the company in 2008 allowed superannuated employees to retain company quarters. However, the petitioner contended that this scheme was valid only until 31-12-2008 and did not apply to the accused, who retired on 31-3-2015. The court found that the accused could not produce any document proving the scheme's applicability at the time of his superannuation. 3. Entitlement of the accused to retain the company’s quarter post-superannuation: The accused claimed entitlement to the quarter based on the 2008 scheme and argued that the company had extended this scheme to other employees. However, the court noted that the accused did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme or any scheme allowing retention of the quarter post-superannuation. The court also observed that the accused's occupation of the quarter was initially lawful under a Leave & License Agreement but became unauthorized post-retirement. 4. The legal principle regarding the wrongful withholding of company property: The court assessed the facts and legal precedents, concluding that the accused was wrongfully withholding the company’s property. It relied on judgments like Gopika Chandrabhushan Saran vs. Xlo India Ltd., which affirmed that criminal courts could direct employees to vacate company property even before formal disposal of the criminal case. The court found the ACJM’s order inconsistent with legal principles and set it aside, directing the accused to vacate the quarter by 30th June 2021, considering the socio-economic impact of the pandemic. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitioner’s application, set aside the ACJM’s order, and granted the accused time until 30th June 2021 to vacate the quarter. If the accused failed to vacate by this date, the ACJM, Durgapur, was directed to take necessary steps to enforce the order.
|
