9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners are the employees of the first respondent-corporation and were allotted quarters to occupy the same for the convenience of the work. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioners have a right to stay during their tenure of employment or till their allotment is terminated by a notice either oral or in writing by the corporation. When the petitioners illegally participated in the strike and did not resume the work in spite of repeated demands made by the first respondent, they were dismissed from the service as per clause 26 of the Standing Orders of the first respondent. On such dismissal, they have no right to continue to withhold the possession of the quarters of the first respondent and hence, they were directed to vacate their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embers. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge after elaborately going through the facts of the case dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, and directed the accused to vacate the quarters within one month from the date of the judgment, if they are not already vacated. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision cases are filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contends that section 630 of the Act does not attract for due eviction of the petitioners and hence, the complaints filed by the first respondent are liable to be dismissed and the petitioners/accused are entitled for acquittal. 6. It is convenient to consider the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Jalan and others and it was stayed in a company petition and finally, the Magistrate issued process against the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused moved an application for recall of the process issued against them and for their discharge and the same was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Thereafter, they preferred the petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Mumbai challenging the process issued against them contending that they cannot be prosecuted under section 630 of the Act and the complaint filed against them is an abuse of the process of the court and it is liable to be quashed and the said petition was dismissed. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 104 Comp. Cas. 424 1 ; while approving the view expressed in Smt. Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain v. Cox Kings (India) Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 28 2 (SC), wherein it is held that: ". . . the object of section 630 of the Act is to retrieve the property of the company where wrongful holding of the property is done by an employee, present or past, or heirs of the deceased employees or officer or anyone claiming the occupancy through such employee or officer. The view expressed in Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain v. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 28; [1995] 3 SCC 732 clearly sub-serves the object of the Act, which is to the effect of recovering the possession of the property belonging to the company. . . ." (p. 529) 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
