Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Prahladbhai Rajaram Mehta vs Popatbhai Haribhai Patel And Anr. on 26 March, 1995

Shri Ravi Traders Through His Partner vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 30 November, 2005

In the matter of Prahladbhai Rajaram Mehta v. Popatbhai Haribhai Patel and Anr. as reported in 1995 (2) G.L.R. 1752. In para-37, this Court again held that the prosecution for wrongful retention of Company's property amounts to offence continuous one and provisions of Section 468 would not be attracted. These instances cited are not comparable instances to present one. Withholding contribution by the employer is an act continuous till the payment is made. Likewise, the retention of Company's property and wrongful withholding, each giving rise to fresh cause of action each day. The evasion of sales-tax is also by nature an offence which is continuous one. While going through the provisions of Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, it is clearly discernible that once the animals or goods are introduced within the octroi limits without tendering octroi, the offence is completed. Therefore, the offence prescribed under Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 would not amount to an offence continuous one.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - J R Vora - Full Document

Sureshchandra Lalbhai Desai vs O.L. Gujarat State Textile Corporation ... on 17 April, 2008

In the case of Prahladbhai Rajaram Mehta v. Popatbhai Haribhai Patel and Anr. (1996) 87 Company Cases 557 (Gujarat), this Court has held that Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, applies to a past officer or employee of a Company, if the wrongful obtaining, withholding or application of the property was done in his capacity as such Officer or employee. Thus, when an employee refuses to vacate the premises of the Company on determination of the employment or on his retirement but continues in possession even after his retirement, the employee can be held liable under Section 630 of the Act. The Court further held that Section 13(1)(f) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, provides that if premises are let to a tenant for use as resident in consequence of his being in service, it is also a ground for eviction. This clause refers to an occupation by a servant as tenant, whether by way of remuneration or a part payment for services or whether paying rent or not. If the Company decides to seek possession under Section 13(1) of the 1947 Bombay Act against the employee-tenant the Company has to pursue the remedies before a competent Court as provided under Section 28 of the 1947 Bombay Act. The provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, also provide a special remedy which is summary in nature against a person who ceases to be in the employment of the Company who was given possession of the premises out of such service relation. The Company has an option either to pursue the remedy provided under Section 630 of the Companies Act or under Section 13(1)(f) under the 1947 Bombay Act. There are thus two remedies open to companies. Both provisions give different but concurrent remedies to companies. Even in the case of tenancy, the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act are available to a Company. The provisions of the 1947 Bombay Act and the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act are required to be interpreted harmoniously so that the object of both the statutes is advanced and not defeated. To say that the provisions of Section 630 cannot be invoked in a case of tenancy would be to render the provision otiose. The provisions of a Central legislation later in point of time, will prevail over the provisions of an earlier State law. Therefore, even if there were any inconsistency, the remedy under the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, would be unaffected by Section 28 of the 1947 Bombay Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - K A Puj - Full Document

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs B.L. Jain (Through Lr Anil Jain) on 11 March, 2015

e.­­­­­­­­ H) In "Prahladbhai Rajaram Mehta vs Popatbhai Haribhai Patel And Anr. on 26 March, 1995" the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court held that two remedies available to the landlords are concurrent, one is for criminal prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act, whereas, the other remedy is provided under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced below:­
Delhi District Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs R.L. Gaur on 11 March, 2015

e.­­­­­­­­ H) In "Prahladbhai Rajaram Mehta vs Popatbhai Haribhai Patel And Anr. on 26 March, 1995" the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court held that two remedies available to the landlords are concurrent, one is for criminal prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act, whereas, the other remedy is provided under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The relevant paras of the judgment is reproduced below:­
Delhi District Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chhatrasingh Nathusingh Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 20 October, 1997

6. There is no dispute of the fact that present revision applicant was working as a peon with the complainant Company. It is an admitted fact he retired on 31-3-1986 on his attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, notice was issued to the present revision applicant on 20-3-1987 calling upon him to vacate the premises. Said notice was replied by reply dated 25-3-1997 in which specific contention was raised by the revision applicant that he was in occupation of the premises as a tenant and not on account of his employment. Thereafter a suit bearing H.R.P. Suit No. 2137 of 1987 was filed in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad on 26-4-1987. It is an admitted fact that said suit was decreed on 24-4-1996 and against the said judgment and decree an appeal has been preferred by the present revision applicant being Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1996 and operation of the judgment and decree passed in H.R.P. Suit No. 2137 of 1987 has been stayed. The controversy between the parties will have to be considered in view of the above stated admitted facts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - S D Pandit - Full Document
1