9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which the accused opposite party is illegally and wrongfully withholding after the termination of service. 3. The present petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the accused opposite party under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, on 20-2-1999. The allegation made in the petition of complaint is that Tata Tea Ltd. is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act. The company appointed the accused opposite party as an assistant manager and provided him with free housing accommodation while he was posted as assistant manager in Sagmoo Tea Estate, Police Station Kaliabor, Nawgaon, Assam. The company, vide its l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said application it was stated that the accused opposite party was wrongfully withholding the possession of the said bungalow and was wilfully and deliberately delaying the matter and the case would prolong for a long time. Such delay is causing extreme difficulties to the complainant-company, which is not able to allot the said bungalow to other officers of the company. It was also stated that the accused opposite party in this way was frustrating the provisions of section 630. 6. The said application under section 630(2) was rejected by the learned Magistrate and against such order of rejection the petitioner came up before this Court in revision. 7. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pendency of the prosecution concerned the court can invoke section 630(2) to get a company bungalow vacated and restored to the company. 9. Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate of the petitioner, relies on a judgment of this Court in Metal Box India v. State of West Bengal [1997] (II) C.H.N. 423. In deciding the said case the learned single judge of this Court relied upon two judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court, one is in Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 1 1 (Bom.) and Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corpn. of (India) Ltd. [1988] 63 Comp. Cas. 1. In the said judgment it was held by this Court as follows: "In Baldev Krisha Sahi s case ( supra ) also the officer of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liver back the company s property." 10. In the present case it appears that the main intention for the accused opposite party is to drag the proceedings for an indefinite period. Repeated prayers for adjournments were made before the learned Magistrate and, ultimately, by his order dated 7-2-2000, the learned Magistrate directed warrant of arrest to be issued against the opposite party. By the said order the opportunity granted to the accused opposite party under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also withdrawn. From the subsequent orders dated 3-4-2000, 2-5-2000, 30-5-2000, 7-7-2000 and 24-8-2000, it appears that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against the accused opposite party. The learned Magistrate could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
