Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The present revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 17-4-2019 passed by the ACJM, Durgapur in connection with Complaint Case No. C-100459 of 2018 under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, wherein the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner for delivery of possession of the premises/flat in issue, so preferred under Sub-Section (2) of the Section 452 of the said Act.
The allegations made in the petition of complaint which was preferred under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 are as follows:-

The Ld. ACJM, Durgapur by an order dated 17-4-2019 was pleased to dismiss the application under Sub-Section (2) of Section 452 of the Companies Act so preferred at the instance of the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the issues so raised cannot be decided at the threshold of the case but are to be decided at the conclusion of trial. By the same order the Ld. Court was pleased to dismiss the said application under Section 452 (2) of the Companies Act.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused joined the service of the company in the year 1978 and during the period of his employment, he was provided with quarter No. LR-171 in ABL Township, Durgapur vide a Leave & License Agreement. The Opposite party superannuated from his service on 30-11- 2016 and thereafter on several occasions the company requested and also sent letters for vacating the quarter, however, the opposite party requested the company to extend the permission to stay for some time till he finds a suitable accommodation, yet, the opposite party illegally continued to retain the quarter.

Having no other option the company was compelled to file a Complaint Case under the provisions of Section 452 of the Companies Act and a further application under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act to vacate the said quarter during the pendency of the said proceedings. The Ld. Advocate also submitted that the contentions raised by the opposite party particularly with regard to the order dated 21-3-2017 passed in WP 7198(W) of 2017 is in respect of a scheme which was valid till 30-12-2008 and the opposite party having superannuated on 30-11-2016, which is much after the expiry of the scheme was in force, is not entitled to get the benefit of any orders passed in the writ petition. Further according to the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner the said scheme related to those employees who opted for voluntary retirement scheme and the scheme for utilization of company's houses in the Township. The opposite party having not opted for VRS or the scheme for utilization of company quarter is not entitled to any protection under the order so passed in WP 7198(W) of 2017. The counter argument so placed by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner in respect of the contention advanced by the opposite party that the final settlement amount has not been utilized by the opposite party and as such the possession of the quarter cannot be said to be unauthorized is without any substance as the law relating to the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High Court at Calcutta. The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner also relied upon Tata Tea vs. Fazlur Rahman reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Cal 563, Metal Box India vs. State of W.B. & Anr. reported in (1997) 2 CHN 423 and Gopika Chandrabhusan Saran & Anr. vs. Xlo India Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 342.

I have taken into account the facts alleged in the complaint and the contentions advanced by the complainant in the application under Section 452(2) of the Companies Act which applied in respect of pending proceedings, having considered the period of service, the scheme referred to, the quarter/premises being part of the entitlement in terms of service and the settled principles of law which have spelt out the proposition regarding the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 452 of the Companies Act (earlier Sub-Section (2) of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956), I am of the opinion that the accused/opposite party is unnecessarily dragging the issue relating to vacating the quarter/premises belonging to the company and a plea of granting extension of stay for a limited period for finding a suitable accommodation was unreasonably converted into a right. In view of the conduct of the accused/opposite party and the provisions of law along with the settled principles as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court as also this Court, I hold that the order dated 17-4-2019 passed by the Ld. ACJM, Durgapur is not in consonance with the principles of law and is liable to be set aside.