AMRIT LAL CHUM v. DEVOPRASAD DUTIA ROY AND ANR. ETC.

Tools

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 1988 (year only)
Bench: A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH and B L.M. SHARMA
Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 783

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided 1988 (year only) · Bench: A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH and B L.M. SHARMA

[1988] 2 S.C.R. 783

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

Held

Section 630 or the Companies Act, 1956 plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to ':-: use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully F ·nretains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment. It 1 the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of the company after termination of the employment, which is an offence under s. 630(1) of the Act. [785B-C]

Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details

JANUARY 20, 1988

Companies Act, 1956: Section 630-lnterpretation of-Officer/ employee of company allotted flat, refusing to vacate, after retirement- Prosecution ofsuch officer/employee-Whether permissible.

.)- Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the court, on c ~ the complaint of the Company, or any creditor or contributory thereof, to punish an officer or elJlployee of such company, by levy of fine, if such officer or employee wrongfully obtains possession of, or having obtained possession, wrongfully withholds or knowingly misapplies, the property of the company; and also order him to deliver up or refund, D within a stipulated time, such property or, in default, to suffer imprisonment.

In these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court, the question for consideration was as to the scope and interpretation of this provision. E

Allowing the appeals,

There is, therefore, no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the G term "officer or employee" appearing in sub-section (t) of s. 630 ofthe Act as meaning only the eii:isting officers and employees and not those whose employment has been terminated. [785C-D]

Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., ll987) 4 SCC 361, followed. H 783

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A [Time granted to respondents till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to the furnishing of usual undertaking. In the event of failure to furnish the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time stipulated, the cases against the respondents to continue and the trial court to proceed with the trial and dispose them of expeditiously, but not later than 31.10.88.] [785G-H; 786A] B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.1986 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl. R. No. 1181of1985. WITH c Criminal ~ppeals Nos. 251-252of1986. '~ From th& Judgment and Order dated 26. 7.1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Crl1 Revn. Nos. 222 and 448 of 1985. Dr. Y.S. Chitale and H.K. Puri for the Appellant. D Parijat Sinha for the Respondent in Crl. A. No. 368 of 1986.

S.K. Kapur, Ranjan Dev and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251-252of1986.

- E Tapas Roy and D.K. Sinha for the State of West Bengal.

D.K. Sinha, K.R. Nambiar, Ms. Reba Roy, K.K. Lahitri and Ms Apsi Ditta for the Interveners.

Judgment

The following Order of the Court was delivered F ORDER

Footnotes

4 SCC 361 overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, [1987]

61 Company Cases 211 as to the scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case has placed a beneficent con- H sttuction on the provisions contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act

p. 785

Footnotes

52 Company Cases 1 and Govind T. Jagtiani v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi, I1984]

56 Company Cases 329 I. E Accordingly, these appeals must succeed and are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are set aside.

~ Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha, F learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation. We grant the respondents time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said under- G taking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Divisional Judicial Magis- trate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas shall continue. In the event of respon- dents' failure to file the ur1dertaking and/or vacate the premises within H

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 2 S.C.R.

A the time specified, the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than October 31, 1988.

The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Com- pany Limited is not pressed. B N.P.V. Appeals allowed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0