9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same were dismissed on 12-5-1999. 2. Again, the petitioner filed Crl. O.P. Nos. 15288 and 15289 of 1999 under section 482 before this Court. The said applications also were dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent filed execution petitions in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3538 and 3539 of 1999 in both the complaints praying for the execution of the orders passed by the trial court earlier in the year 1993 in S.T.C. Nos. 2470 and 3011 of 1993. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the said petitions were allowed giving a direction to the petitioner. Accordingly, in both the complaints, the execution court by the order dated 8-12-1999 directed the petitioner to hand over the motor vehicle and the records to the complainant within one week and in default, he would undergo R.I. for six months. Challenging the same, these two revisions have been filed. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the applications filed by the respondent for execution in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3538 and 3539 of 1998 before the Execution Court, the petitioner filed a memo under section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to review the matter in view of the fact that the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been arrived at due to the following circumstances. 8. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Act. It has got five directors of whom the petitioner held 40 per cent of the subscribed capital. The petitioner did not attend three consecutive Board Meetings and, consequently, he ceased to be the director as per the provisions of section 283(1)( g ) of the Companies Act. The petitioner was entrusted with the documents and motor vehicle in the capacity as the director. Through the board s resolution, the petitioner was directed to return the documents and the vehicle. Since they were not returned, the respondent filed two complaints in S.T.C. Nos. 2470 and 3011 of 1993 under section 630. 9. The trial Court after enquiry, by the order dated 23-8-1995 convicted the petitioner in both the complaints and sentenced to pay fine and directed the petitioner for the return of the records and motor cycle. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed two revisions in C.R.P. Nos. 63 and 64 of 1995 before the Sessions Court. The said revisions were dismissed by the order dated 17-3-1998 confirming the order of conviction by the trial Court. Against these orders, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Atul Kalra [1989] (4) Supreme Court Cases p. 514 squarely applies to the facts of the instant case, because the petitioner had filed a suit in civil court, under the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the civil court was in seisin of the matter at the time when the learned Judicial Magistrate passed order." 13. In the above paragraph, the learned single Judge of this Court would specifically refer about the decision of the Supreme Court in Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra 1989(4) SCC 514, wherein it is held that merely because the accused had schemingly filed a suit in civil court, it can never be said that the civil court was in seisin of a bona fide dispute between the parties and as such, the Criminal Court should have stayed its hands when the Company filed a complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act. Thus, it is clear that the point urged before this Court has already been dealt with by this Court as early as 12-5-1999. 14. Instead of challenging the said orders passed by this Court before the Apex Court, the petitioner chose to approach this Court again by filing other applications, as noted above, in Crl. O.P. Nos. 15288 and 15289 of 1999. When a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the review of the order passed by this Court earlier are not maintainable and they are nothing but an abuse of process of law. 17. As a matter of fact, the specific finding has been given in the said order that the company adduced evidence both oral and documentary to establish that the Board of Directors decided to get back or recover the property belonging to the company from the petitioner and when once this has been established, the only course open to the petitioner is to return the property. Despite this order, no attempt has been made to comply with the order by the petitioner. 18. The said order also has not been challenged before the Apex Court. On the other hand, the petitioner chose to file a memo before the trial Court seeking for review of its own order on the basis of some observation made in V.M. Shah s case ( supra ), that too when the petitions filed for execution in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3538 and 3539 of 1998 were pending before the execution court. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in V.M. Shah s case ( supra ) has been referred to in the order dated 12-5-1999 passed by this Court. 19. Though it is stated in some of the decisions as pointed out b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
