9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Respondent. JUDGMENT B.K. Rathi, J.--I have heard Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and the learned A.G.A. for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. Opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicant under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956,. on the allegation that the applicant was the employee of opposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that order by the applicant was rejected by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The applicant therefore, approached this court. It is contended that the registered office of opposite party No. 1-company is at Calcutta. Therefore, it is argued that according to section 2(11) the complaint could be filed in a court subordinate to the High Court of Calcutta. Both the courts repelled the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Act is not barred by the arbitration clause. Learned counsel for the applicant has also contended before me that the liability is of civil nature and complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act is not maintainable. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Jagdish Chcmdra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf [1999] 95 Comp Cas 48 ; [1999] SCC (Crl.) 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
