9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by any person. The Act provides that the Court trying an offence may order an employee to deliver the wrongfully withheld property, and the failure to comply with the said order is punishable with imprisonment and fine. In the instant case, the petitioners admittedly delivered the property said to have been withheld by them. The respondent cannot refute the communications and the receipt of the laptops. From the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners had wrongfully withheld the property. The petitioners have returned the property and since, in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that they had initially wrongfully withheld the property, the continuation of the impugned prosecution would be an abuse of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners sent it once again on 24.08.2021, which was received by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offence under Section 452 of the Act is quasi criminal. The said provision, which is pari materia with Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, was intended to provide a speedy remedy to the company for recovery of its property. The provisions would make it clear that what is made punishable is the disobedience of the order of the Court directing the person continuing to withhold the property to deliver the property within a fixed time. In this case, the petitioners had returned the property, and hence the alleged offence is not made out. The fact that the petitioners had returned the laptops and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the failure to comply with the said order is punishable with imprisonment and fine. In the instant case, the petitioners admittedly delivered the property said to have been withheld by them. The respondent cannot refute the communications and the receipt of the laptops. From the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners had wrongfully withheld the property. The Honourable Supreme Court in Lalita Jalan and Another Vs. Bombay Gas Co.Ltd., and Others reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 107 has held as follows; 17.....Having regard to the purpose for which Section 630 has been enacted viz. to retrieve the property of the company and the salient features of the statute (Companies Act) it is not possib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
