Delhi District Court
M/S Texmaco Ltd. vs Ram Niwas on 22 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL: TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
M/s Texmaco Ltd. vs Ram Niwas
CC No.1432/03
U/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956
JUDGEMENT
(a) Serial no. of the case : 02401R1028402003
(b) Date of commission of offence: On and after 30.11.1996
continuously
(c) Name of complainant : M/s Texmaco Limited
Having its registered office
At: Balgheria Calcutta and
Regional office at:
508, Surya Kiran Building
Kastoorba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi
(d) Name, parentage, residence: Ram Niwas
S/o Sh. Rati Ram
R/o Q.No.6B, Shivaji Lines,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi07
(e) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 630 of Companies Act
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
(g) Final order : Convicted u/s 630 of
Companies Act, 1956.
(h) Date of such order : 22.03.11
Date of Institution : 18.08.03
Date of Reservation of Judgment:08.03.11
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment:22.03.11
Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 1
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The complainant company, M/s. Texmaco Ltd. filed the present complaint u/s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused, alleging that on 12.01.76 accused joined the services of erstwhile company M/s Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., and he was allotted one quarter bearing Qr. No.6B Shivaji Lines, Shakti Nagar, Delhi07 on 05.01.87 as a licensee, by virtue of his employment. It is further alleged, that by virtue of a scheme of arrangement dated 03.01.1983, arrived at between the present complainant and M/s Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and pursuant to the order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the present complainant became the owner of the concerned Birla Mill Unit where the accused was working along with all its employees and the properties, including the property in question. Pursuant to the said arrangement, all the agreements, more particularly, licence agreement entered between M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. with third parties are deemed to be entered between the complainant company and those third parties. Complainant company also acquired all the rights, titles, interests in the properties of the mill and the housing colonies of the mill unit Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 2 of the said M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and all the employees of the said mill unit of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., became the employees of the present complainant company pursuant to the said scheme of arrangement. In terms of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Petition No.4677/1985, the working of the mill in Delhi was closed w.e.f. 30.11.96. as such, accused ceased to be in services of complainant company from 30.11.96. Accused joined the services at Baddi (Himachal Pradesh) Mill on 10.04.99 under M/s Chamal Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd., which is an independent legal entity, hence, accused ceased to be employee of complainant company M/s Texmaco Ltd. from 10.04.99. After joining the services at Baddi, accused was offered residential accommodation there by M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, however, accused also ceased to be the employee of mill at Baddi w.e.f 16.08.2000 vide letter dt.04.08.2000. As such, accused ceased to be the employee of complainant company as well as M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemical Ltd.. It is alleged that despite cessation of his services accused did not vacate the quarter allotted to him and is wrongfully withholding the quarter.
Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 3
2. After summoning of the accused for the said offence, a notice for the offence U/s 630 of the Companies Act was given to the accused in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its allegation, the complainant examined its attorney Sh. R. S. Sharma as PW1. PW1 deposed that he is attorney of the complainant company and duly authorised to sign, verify the complaint and to depose in the present case vide resolution Ex. PW 1/1 and power of attorney Ex. PW1/2. He also proved the certificate of incorporation Ex. PW1/3 and deposed that the accused was allotted the said quarter vide allotment letter Ex. PW1/5. He also proved on record the scheme of arrangement and order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Company Petition No.59/1982 dated 03.1.1983, Ex PW1/4; through which all the rights, titles, interest, properties, assets and liabilities as well as the employees of the said mill unit of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., became that of the complainant company. He further deposed that the accused ceased to be the employee of complainant company w.e.f. 30.11.1996, as such, he was liable to vacate the Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 4 quarter but he failed to do so. This witness was cross examined at length on behalf of accused but nothing contradictory material has come on record which could impeach the credit worthiness of these witnesses or the case of the complainant.
4. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C to which he denied the allegations and submitted that earlier the quarter in question was given to his father on tenancy basis and later on same was alloted to him as a tenant and not on the licences basis. Accused did not deny that by virtue of scheme of arrangement Ex. PW1/4 complainant became owner of the quarter in question as well as employer of accused. Accused further stated that he still continues to be in services as his dues have not been cleared by the complainant or its predecessor in interest and his service was not properly terminated. In support of his contentions accused examined Sh. Anil Tikku, court assistant, PIL Writ Section, Supreme Court, as DW1, Karan Singh, Patwari, Tehsil Civil Lines as DW2, Sh. Satyapal record attendant Department of Delhi Archives as DW3, Sh. Nani Gopal Das, Patwari, DDA, as DW4 and Sh. Laxmi Narain Chief Election Office, Kashmiri Gate, as DW5. Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 5
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant company as well as accused and gone through the record of the case. I have also gone through the written arguments as well as citations filed on behalf of parties.
6. While dealing with the case U/s 630 of Companies Act, this court is to go by the following guidelines which are laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the following case: "1993 CRI. L.J. 2791 " K.G.K. Nair v. P.C. Juneja"
The provisions of S.630 are intended to provide speedy and efficacious redress in cases where company's property i9s wrongfully withheld and therefore the following guidelines are required to be observed:
(a)That the complaints be taken up and disposed of on a priority basis, the accent being on the avoidance of any unwarranted delay.
(b)That the trial Courts should address themselves to the fact that the scope of the enquiry in a proceeding under Section 630 is extremely restricted in law and, consequently, the parties be confined within those narrow ambits without being permitted to dilate or protract the proceeding through extraneous avenues.
(c)That no frivolous application for adjournment, stay of proceedings, etc., should be permitted by the trial Courts because the history of those proceedings indicate that each of such states is responsible for further litigation and years of delay. The pendency of other civil proceedings is no bar Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 6 to the decision of an application under S. 630 which fact should be taken cognizance of in such situations.
(d)That the appeal, i.e., Court of Session, in the first instance, must judiciously scrutinize and vigorously examine the revision applications and appeal before granting stay orders.
(e)That applications for discharge on frivolous and untenable pleas are required to be speedily and effectively disposed of and are not to be used as handles for protracting the litigation".
7. For proving the offence u/s 630 of Companies Act, complainant company was required to establish on record the following ingredients:
(a)That the complainant company is registered under the Companies Act;
(b)That the complainant company is the owner of quarter in question and there exists/existed the relationship of employer and employee between the complainant company and accused;
(c)That the accused was allotted quarter in question on licence basis;
(d)That the accused was ceased to be employee of the complainant company and
(e)That the accused has wrongfully withheld the quarter in question.
Point (a) "That the complainant company is registered under the Companies Act"
8. It is clear from the ex. PW1/3 that the Complainant company the registered under the Companies Act. Even otherwise factum of complainant company's incorporation is not in dispute. Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 7 Point(b) That the complainant company is the owner of quarter in question and there exists/existed the relationship of employer and employee between the complainant company and accused;
9. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused admitted that he joined M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills on 12.01.76. Ld. counsel for accused also argued that complainant is not the owner of the quarter in question, therefore, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the accused. He further argued that in pursuance to the aforesaid order the complainant was required to do certain acts and a certified copy of the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was to be submitted with ROC, Calcutta. However, they have not fulfilled these requirements, therefore, this order has no application and complainant company cannot claim ownership by virtue of this order. This court does not find any substance in the submissions of Ld. counsel for accused. It is clear from the perusal of order the Hon'ble High Court that no further act was required even otherwise. This scheme of arrangement has not been challenged hence it became final. This formality was procedural which was to Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 8 be complied with and accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of these technicalities. Relevant para of the order of Hon'ble High Court reads as under which clarifies that the complainant company had become the owner of the i.e. M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Textiles as well as quarter in question.
(1)That all the property, rights, and powers of the said transferor company specified in the first, second and third parts of the Schedule II hereto and all the other property, rights and powers of the said transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the said transferee company and accordingly the same shall, pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, be transferred to and vest in the said transferee company for all the estate and interest of the said transferor company for all the estate and interest of the said transferor company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same, and (2)That all the liabilities and duties of the said transferor company by transferred without further act or deed to the said transferee company and accordingly the same shall, pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the said transferee company: and (3)That all proceedings now pending by or against the said transferor company be continued by or against the said transferee company; and (4)all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements and instruments of whatever kind or nature relating to the said units of M/s Birla Cottons shall continue to be in full force and effect against or in favour of Texmaco as the case may be and Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 9 enforced as fully and effectively as if Texmaco instead of Birla Cotton had been a party thereto.
10.Thus, it is clear from the perusal of the order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that complainant company has become the owner of all the properties of the unit of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. without any further Act or Deed and said quarter stood transferred and vested with the complainant company for all the estate and interests. Thus, complainant company has become the owner of the property in question and has got every right to prosecute with this complaint.
11.Moreover, in "AIR 2007 Delhi 147, Kamla Rani and Ors vs M/s Texmaco Ltd." Hon'ble High Court has relied on the same scheme of arrangement Ex. PW1/4 and hold that the entire assets of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. stood transferred to M/s Texmaco Ltd. and therefore said company was the successorininterest of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.. Thus, it is clear that the complainant company became owner of all the property, rights and powers in the mill unit of transferee company without any further act or deed and by Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 10 virtue of scheme of arrangement Ex. PW1/4, complainant company became owner of the property in question, therefore, they have every right to prosecute this complaint. Ld. defence counsel submitted that complainant has failed to prove their ownership as they have not proved on record the Sale Deed of property in question. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that complainant company has become owner of premises in question by virtue of a scheme of arrangement, in such circumstances, sale deed was not required to be proved.
12.The complainant company was further required to establish on record that accused was an employee of the complainant company. Ld. counsel for accused argued that accused is not employee of the complainant company, however this court does not find any substance in it. It is clear from the scheme of arrange ex. PW1/4 that the complainant company become the owner of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills Textiles (which was earlier a unit of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills) as well as quarter in question. It is further clear from perusal of this scheme of arrangement that all the employees of M/s Birla Cottons Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 11 Spinning and Weaving Mills has become the employees of complainant company i.e. M/s Texmaco Ltd. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "2.(b)(i) All the employees of the said Units of Birla Cotton in service on the date immediately preceding the Effective Date shall become the employee of Texmaco without interruption in service and on terms no loss fevourable to them those applicable to them on the day immediately preceding the effective date".
Thus, it is clear that accused had also become the employee of the complainant company i.e. M/s Texmaco Ltd.. In his statement accused has not disputed that he joined the services of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills on 12.01.76. It is further clear form the statement of accused that he also not disputed that complainant became owner of quarter in question and his employer. It is also crystal clear from his statement that till 30.11.96 accused worked with the present complainant only but nonelse. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that as to how the present complainant stepped into the shoes of M/s Birla Cottons Spinning and Weaving Mills and it became owner of quarter in question and employer of accused w.e.f. 03.01.83. Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 12 Point(c) "That the accused was allotted quarter in question on licence basis"
13.Complainant company was required to establish on record that accused is the licensee of the complainant company. PW1 has deposed that the accused was allotted quarter in question on licence basis through letter Ex. PW1/5 which bears signature of accused at point A. Accused has not denied this fact in his statement as well as in the cross examination of PW1. Once the quarter in question was allotted to the accused on licence basis by the erstwhile owner, the status of the accused shall always remain as of a licensee. Moreover, it is crystal clear from the terms and conditions of allotment letter Ex. PW1/5 that quarter in question was allotted to the accused on licence basis. The terms and conditions contained in ex. PW1/5 are very clear and specific that accused was nothing but licensee. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused has taken specific plea that quarter was given to him on tenancy basis. However, except his statement accused has not brought on record any document i.e. rent receipt etc to show that he is tenant in the quarter. Accused has simply claimed that he is tenant in the said quarter, however he has not Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 13 lead any evidence to show that he is tenant in the quarter in question. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that a tenancy is always created by a contract and for creating the contract of tenancy, both the parties i.e. landlord and tenant must be at adidem case law. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "2009 (160) DLT 171, Viran Devi vs. S. Subhash" accused ought to have established on record the contract of tenancy, however except a bald statement nothing is proved on record to show that there exists a tenancy agreement between the parties. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that accused is a licensee and complainant is the licensor. Point(d) & (e) "That the accused was ceased to be employee of the complainant company"
"That the accused has wrongfully withheld the quarter in question"
14.It is not denied that the mill at Delhi was closed down w.e.f 30.11.96. The main stand taken by the accused is that he is still in the service of the company as his dues were not cleared. Ld. defence counsel submitted that present complaint is not maintainable as his dues and compensation have not been paid. In Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 14 support of his contentions, Ld. defence counsel has relied upon citation reported as "2002 Cri. L.J. 360". It is most respectfully observed that this case law is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The fact of the case in hand is quite different than that of case. In that case it was the standing order of the company that the company shall firstly pay the gratuity of the retired employee and only thereafter, the retired employee shall vacate the quarter. However, in the present case nothing has been placed on record that any such standing order has been passed by the present complainant. If his dues/compensation are not paid he has to avail appropriate remedy. This court is of the considered opinion that accused cannot be allowed to withhold the quarter on the ground of non payment of dues and compensation.
15.Now let us see whether complainant company has established that accused is wrongfully withholding the quarter. As per contents of allotment letter, the accused was to remain in possession of the quarter till he was in the services of the company and after cessation of his service accused was to vacate and hand over the Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 15 quarter to the complainant company. It is stated that accused ceased to be employee of the complainant company on 30.11.96 and after that he has been unauthorizedly and illegally withholding the quarter. Thus, after cessation of his service accused was under obligation to vacate and hand over the possession of quarter in question which he failed to do so. Accused has not denied that he is still occupying the quarter. Since, he did not vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter in question after cessation of his service thus, it is held that accused has been wrongfully withholding the quarter. Moreover, it is also not disputed during cross examination that complainant company did not request lastly on 10.07.03 seeking vacation of the quarter. Ld. defence counsel submitted that no notice of termination and notice to vacate the quarter was ever served upon the accused. These arguments of the Ld. defence counsel does not carry much weight as for maintaining the proceeding u/s 630 of Companies Act, aforesaid notice is not required to be served upon the accused. However, at the costs of repetition it is reiterated that services of the accused has already come to an end w.e.f 30.11.96. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "1989 (4) SCC 514, Atul Mathur vs Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 16 Atul Kalra and Anr." that it is the duty of the court to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy u/s 630 of Companies Act and that the technicality should not come in the way of advancing the justice.
16.Ld. defence counsel further argued that the power of attorney and resolution in favour of the complainant is not proved in accordance with law and it does not comply with the provisions of Power of Attorney Act. The persons who delegated his power to the alleged attorney did not file his power to delegate. It is also argued that the resolution regarding power of attorney in favour of complainant has not been proved. The complainant is stranger to the company, therefore, no resolution could have been passed in favour of the complainant. However, this court does not find any force in his submissions. Accused has objected this power of attorney for the first time at the fagend of the trial and has not raised objection at the time of exhibiting this power of attorney i.e Ex. PW1/2. Perusal of power of attorney placed on record shows that it has been perfectly and legally notarized and it fulfills all the ingredients of section 85 of Indian Evidence Act. Ld. defence counsel has also Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 17 relied upon number of judgments in support of his contentions and stated that attorney Mr. R.S. Sharma has failed to prove his authority to depose before this court. It is most respectfully observed that citations filed by the Ld. defence counsel is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. It is already discussed above as to how power of attorney relied upon by PW1 was a valid power power of attorney and he has right to depose before this court. It is also observed that power of attorney has been duly proved by PW1. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that once there is a duly notarized power of attorney then it shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved. Accused has not produced any ingredients to disprove the power of attorney.
17.This court is supported with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "AIR 1971, SC 761, Jugraj Singh vs Jaswant Singh". This court is further supported with the case law "AIR, 1982 Delhi 4897, Citibank N.A., New Delhi vs Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills ©. Ltd." in which it has been held that Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 18 execution of power of attoreny by a Bank's Executive Officer and Cashier delegating certain powers to one employee and documents bearing Bank's seal and attested by Notary Public raises presumption that power of attorney is executed by the bank. Word "person" in section 85 includes legal person. It is further held by the Hon'ble High Court in "AIR 1981 Delhi 222" and "AIR 1972 Allahabad 219" that a power of attorney along with verifications are to be presumed to be true u/s 85 of Evidence Act. This court is further supported with the case law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in "AIR 2007 Delhi 147, Kamla Rani and Ors vs M/s Texmaco" which was a case of the present complainant on the same facts. It was contended by the employee before Hon'ble High Court that eviction case was not filed by a properly authorized person and Hon'ble High Court held that ...Once a document is authenticated by a notary public, it will be presumed that the document was duly executed and was in order. As observed in AIR 1984 (363( (sic) M/s E.C. and E.Co. Ltd. v. M/s J. E. Works, if two conditions are satisfied, firstly the power of attorney being executed before a notary public and secondly Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 19 it being authenticated by a notary public, a presumption would arise under section 85 about the executant of the power of attorney. ...Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "AIR 1997 SC 3 Union of India vs Gresham Kumar"
is additionally relied upon by me. The said decision states that where a suit has been filed on behalf of a corporate body and is duly prosecuted by the person who had filed the suit, a presumption would arise that the person concerned was authorized to do so".
18. Ld. defence counsel further argued that the complainant is the encroacher over the government land and property in question belongs to Government, hence present proceedings is not maintainable against the accused. Same point came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "AIR 2007 Delhi 147, Kamla Rani and Ors vs M/s Texmaco Ltd" case. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in this matter that ... ownership is not relevant for the reason a person may be a landlord without being an owner. ...A tenant who accepts a Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 20 person as his landlord is estopped from questioning the title of his landlord. As per section 116 of Evidence Act, the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord over the premises let out to him. It is settled law that a company may take premises on lease from the owner with a permission to induct its employee as a tenant/licensee. Furthermore, as per the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, 68% of the land had to be handed over to DDA and remaining 32% vested in the company.
19.Furthermore, it is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the complainant has proved that the accused was let out the quarter in question on licence basis by virtue of his employment. It is well settled law that the tenant or a licensee has got no right to challenge the title of his landlord/licensor. In this regard this court is supported with following case law: Bilas Kunwar vs Desraj Ranjit Singh, (AIR 1915 Privy Council at p.98) ARI 2006 SC 3569 Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones AIR 1937 P.C. 251 Krishna Prasad Lal v. Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 4163 Sheikh Noor and Anr. v. Sheikh G.S. Ibrahim AIR 2002 SC 3294, S.K. Sharma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma (2002) 2 SCC 501 Vashu Deo v. Balkishan
20.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the complainant has filed only photo copies of documents and originals were not Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 21 produced. However, perusal of record shows that Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 are certified copies, while the letter Ex. PW1/5 is original. So far as Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PWA1/2 are concerned its copies are filed on record. Admittedly there are number of cases filed by the complainant company, thus, complainant cannot be expected to file originals in one case. Even otherwise accused cannot raise this objection at the fagend of the case. It is well settled law that once the exhibiting of the documents not opposed at the time of its proof during the evidence, objection cannot be entertained. In this regard this court is supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "(2003) 8 SCC 752B". It is most respectfully observed that the case law cited by the Ld. defence counsel is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
21.Ld. defence counsel further argued that the accused has right to retain the quarter in question as his dues are not paid. However, this court does not find any substance in this plea. It has been held by the Hon'ble Allahabd High Court in "1996 LLR 152" that Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 22 proceedings u/s 630 of Companies Act are not barred on the ground that a labour dispute is pending between the employer and employee. Thus, same analogy can be applied here that complainant has right to prosecute the accused u/s 630 of Companies Act, if he is wrongfully withholding the premises though his dues are not paid.
22.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the service of the accused has not been terminated. He further submitted that no notice of termination and notice to vacate the quarter was ever served upon the accused. He further submitted that accused is only a tenant and therefore, only civil proceedings can be initiated for eviction of the accused. These arguments of the Ld. defence counsel does not carry much weight as for maintaining the proceeding u/s 630 of Companies Act, aforesaid notice is not required to be served upon the accused. The proceedings u/s 630 of Companies Act are distinct proceedings from the civil eviction proceedings and an incorporated company has got right to prosecute its employee/officer who is wrongfully withholding the property of the company and even if some civil proceedings are Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 23 pending qua the same property. It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "1990(2) C.C. Cases 298, M/s Texmaco Ltd. vs. Arun Kumar Sharma & Another" that the proceedings u/s 630 of Companies Act can continue even if some civil proceedings in regard to the same premises are pending. While making the aforesaid observation, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "J.D. 1989(3) S.C. 350".
23.Ld. defence counsel has submitted that in "MC Mehta vs Union of India" Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that employees be provided with alternative accommodation. Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has not directed that their employee should be provided an alternative accommodation. Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that vide the aforesaid order the employees of closed units were given 1½ years time to vacate and later on this direction was also withdrawn. It is clear from the evidence of complainant that complainant's mill was closed w.e.f 30.11.96 and now more than fourteen years have Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 24 lapsed and accused is still withholding the quarter. Thus, it is clear that accused has enjoyed the possession of quarter for the period much beyond 1½ years. Moreover, it is clear from the provisions of section 630 of Companies Act that intention of the Legislation is to provide summary procedure to the companies, whose property has been wrongfully withheld by their employees or officers. It nowhere contemplates that the company has to give alternative accommodation to their employees before obtaining the possession of the property which is wrongfully withheld.
24.Ld. defence counsel further argued that the present complaint is barred as the same has not been filed before expiry of limitation. This court does not find substance in this plea. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "1995 RLR 232(SC), Smt. Abhilash vs Cox & Kings" that the offence u/s 630 of Companies Act is a continuing offence, thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is held that the present proceedings u/s 630 of Companies Act is not bared. Ld. defence counsel also submitted that complainant has got no right to institute the present Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 25 complaint as suit property is public premises. This court again does not find any substance in it. Accused has not disputed that the complainant company became owner of the quarter in question as well as his employer by virtue of scheme of arrange and he served the complainant company. Accused has not disputed this fact during his statement. Thus, as per section 116 of Evidence Act, accused cannot challenge the title of complainant and allege that suit property is a public property. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in "AIR 1915 Privy Council 98" that a licensed tenant has got no right to challenge the title of his licensor/landlord though it may be defective.
25.Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that other accused persons were also convicted by the Ld. Predecessor Courts of Ld. ACMM on the basis on similar complaints filed by the present complainant. He further submitted that these orders have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases: "Crl. Rev. P. No. 233/2010, as Lakhan Singh vs Texmaco No. 2057/06, as Kanta Devi vs Texmaco.
"SLP (Crl.) 5216/06"
2006[3] JCC 1964, Mohan Singh vs M/s Texmaco & Anr. Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 26 Crl.Rev. Petition No.21/2011, Khajan Singh vs State & Anr. CRL.M.C.80/2011, Kusum Lata vs Texmaco Ltd.
CRL.REV.P.380/2010Bhura Mal Thr. Its LR's Chander Kant vs State & Anr. CRL.REV.P.789/2006 & CRL.REV.P.790/2006
26.Thus, in view of these discussions it is held that complainant has established that the accused was allotted the aforesaid quarter on licence basis by virtue of his employment. It is further held services of the accused came to an end w.e.f 30.11.96 and after cessation of his service accused failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the quarter in dispute to the complainant. In such, circumstances it is held that the accused is wrongfully withholding the quarter of the complainant company after cessation of his services. Thus, it is held that complainant has been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 630 of The Companies Act 1956.
(AJAY GUPTA) ACMM(SPECIAL) ACTS, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI Announced in open court on 22.03.11 Texmaco vs Ram Niwas 27