9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r cent. The company negotiated with Punjab National Bank for credit facilities. Since the assets of the company were not sufficient to cover the range of credit facilities offered, the petitioner and his late father gave their personal properties as additional securities. The petitioner was designated as Director Marketing and by his dedicated hard work, even in the first year of operation, he was able to procure orders for purchase to the extent of Rs. one crore. Because of this, the bank increased the credit facility limit. The bankers found that sale proceeds received by the company were not deposited in the account and outstanding to the Bank remianed not discharged. The 2nd respondent looking after the financial transactions could not give any reasonable explanation. To cover the lapses, he informed the bank that due to the differences and inter se dispute among the Directors, the stalemate had arised. The factory was also closed on 7-6-1993. Since out-standings to the bank remained undischarged, the Bank Manager called the Directors for meeting on 11-6-1993. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 4 met the officials of the bank. The officials of the bank suggested the dispute i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted interim injunction. The petitioner also filed S.T.C. 1319 of 1995 to punish the respondents under section 628 of the Act for filing Form No. 32 with Registrar of companies declaring that the petitioner, ceased to be the director of the company. The learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore passed separate orders in S.T.C. No. 2470 of 1993 and S.T.C. 3011 of 1993 that the offence under section 630 was proved and the petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs. 200 and to return the properties of the company. He also preferred revisions against the said order before the District Court, Coimbatore and they were dismissed. STC No. 1319 of 1995 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and aggrieved against this, Crl. R. C. 33 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner. This court held that the learned magistrate has erred in dismissing STC No. 1319 of 1995 and the learned magistrate should try the case and find out whether the averments in the complaint are true or not and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The petitioner also filed petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl. O.P. 6150 and 9040 of 1998 against the orders in STC 2470 of 1993 and 3011 of 1993 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute arose and the activities of the company came to a standstill. The complaint is not one based on section 283(1)(g) of the Act. The averments regarding the proceedings in Crl. R. C. No. 33 of 1996 are all matters of record and has no relevancy to this case. The petitioner is aware of the fact that the statutory records should be maintained in the registered office of the company, failing which the company is liable to be prosecuted. He is withholding the statutory records wrongfully for the last six years without any justification. These petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 7. The petitioner was one of the Directors in the first respondent company. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Article 29 of the Memorandum of articles of association that he is a lifetime Director of the company and he cannot be removed. It is admitted that the first respondent company represented by the 2nd respondent, managing director filed two complaints under section 630 against the petitioner in S.T.C. 2470 and 3011 of 1993 for return of the company's motor cycle and also for return of the company's records. It is admitted that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicate that these two petitions are again filed reiterating the very same contentions, which have been negatived by this Court in the earlier proceedings. Simply because in another connected proceedings, this Court has remanded the matter with a direction to find out whether the petitioner had absented for three consecutive meetings, I am of the view that now it cannot be made use of to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in a different proceedings. 9. It is evidently clear that according to section 630 any officer or employee of a company, who wrongfully withholds any property shall on the complaint of the company be punishable with fine and he should also return the property. There is no dispute that the petitioner was one of the Directors in the company and there is also resolution of the Board to file a complaint against the petitioner under section 630. When there is a resolution calling upon the petitioner to return the property, it is just and proper for him to return the same. It is also not in dispute that a notice was also sent to the petitioner, calling upon him to return the motor cycle as well as other records relating to the company. Inspite of this, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the inherent powers of High Court under section 561A cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are directly covered by specific provisions of the Code. They also relied on Nalu v. State AIR 1965 Ori. 7 that the inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked to review or alter the judgment delivered in a criminal revision. They also relied on Rajan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka [1990] SCC (Cri) 537 that merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been overcome, if that was to be permitted, every revision application facing the bar of section 397(3) of the code could be labelled as one under section 482. 12. It is, therefore, evidently clear from the aforesaid facts and discussion that the petitioner had already filed two petitions invoking the inherent power of this Court under section 482 and they were dismissed by this court by the order dated 12-5-1999. Now, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the very same points before this court again invoking section 482 as if there is a material change in the circumstances. STC No. 1319 of 1995 said to have been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
