Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 630 in The Complainant Company vs Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd on 5 August, 2010Matching Fragments
30.11.1996 and was, thus, wrongfully withholding the quarter.
2. On being summoned for the said offence, a notice for the said offence of Section 630 of the Companies Act was served upon the accused, in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C, to which he claimed trial.
3. In support of his claim the complainant examined only one witness PW1 R. S. Sharma who deposed that he is power of page 3 of 27 klj attorney holder 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 also deposed that the accused was allotted the said quarter vide allotment letter Ex. PW1/5. He also proved order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Company Petition No.59/1982 dated 03.1.1983, Ex PW1/4; vide which scheme of arrangement, 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. He also deposed that the accused was liable to vacate the quarter but he failed to do so even after request made. Despite cross examination of this witness nothing material could be brought on record from the cross examination in order to impeach the creditworthiness or trust worthiness of the witness or the case of the complainant.
5. Despite opting to lead defence evidence in his favour, the accused did not lead any defence in his favour.
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant company and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
7. It is settled law that the scope of inquiry in a proceedings u/s 630 is extremely restricted in law and the case is to be confined within those narrow ambit's without permitting any delay. The provision contained in Section 630 has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of page 5 of 27 klj the company. It is the duty of the Court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. In Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra and another, 1989 (4) SCC 514, it was held that the purpose of enacting Section 630 is to provide speedy relief to a company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or an exemployee. I n, 1993 CRI. L. J. 2791"K. G. K. Nair v. P. C. Juneja", also it is held that, the provisions of S. 630 are intended to provide speedy and efficacious redress in cases where company's property is wrongfully withheld and 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.
In the case of S. K. Sarma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3294 = 2002 AIR SCW 3827 Union of India v. B.N. Prasad and, in [(1978) 2 SCC 462] the cases pertained to Section 138 of the Railways Act, which is somewhat similar to section 630 of the Companies Act, and page 6 of 27 klj which provides a procedure for summary delivery of property, detained by a railway servant, to the railway administration. It was observed that the said provision is in public interest and must be construed liberally, broadly and meaningfully so as to advance the object sought to be achieved by the Railways Act..............".
12. U/s 630 of the Companies Act, not only a property, which is acquired by an employee lawfully can be recovered, but it would also cover those cases, where the properties of the page of 27 klj companies are acquired by employee unlawfully and then it is retained. Section 630 of the Companies Act includes those situations, where the property of the company is taken possession of by unlawfully. Thus, the arguments of the accused that he constructed the quarter out of his own funds and sources on the land would still to be covered U/s 630 of the Companies Act, since the land belongs to the complainant company, as the said property is covered under the scheme of arrangement Ex PW1/4.