Company property protection under section 630 extends to ex-employees, and eviction bar does not oust criminal jurisdiction.

Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act does not bar a magistrate from entertaining a complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, because the two statutes address different wrongs: eviction from public premises and wrongful withholding of company property. Section 630 also extends to retired or ex-employees who continue to withhold company property after termination, as the right to possession is co-terminus with employment and the provision covers both wrongful obtaining and wrongful withholding. The provision was further upheld against an article 14 challenge, since the classification of company officers and employees has an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object of protecting company property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ousted the criminal court's jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a retired or ex-employee; (iii) Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ousted the criminal court's jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 15 was construed harmoniously with section 11 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The bar in section 15 was held to relate to eviction proceedings concerning public premises and not to criminal prosecution for offences. Reading section 15 as covering criminal proceedings would render section 11 nugatory, since section 11 specifically creates offences and vests jurisdiction in the magistrate. The complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was also found to concern a different statutory wrong, namely wrongful withholding of company property, and not eviction under the Public Premises Act.

Conclusion: The magistrate had jurisdiction, and section 15 did not bar the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a retired or ex-employee.

Analysis: Section 630 was read as covering not only present employees but also past employees who wrongfully withhold company property after termination of employment. The right to possession was held to be co-terminus with employment, and continued retention after retirement amounted to wrongful withholding. The provision was understood as encompassing both wrongful obtaining and wrongful withholding, with sub-section (2) enabling delivery up of the property and imposing punishment for disobedience.

Conclusion: Section 630 applies to an ex-employee who wrongfully withholds company property.

Issue (iii): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification of officers and employees of companies was held to be founded on an intelligible differentia, namely their special relationship with company property and management. The provision was also found to bear a rational nexus to the object of protecting company property and regulating company administration. The absence of a similar penal provision for employees of private individuals or partnerships did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the criminal process failed on all substantive grounds, and the prosecution under section 630 was held to be maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on eviction proceedings does not oust criminal jurisdiction where the complaint alleges a distinct penal offence, and a provision protecting company property may validly extend to ex-employees who wrongfully withhold such property, provided the classification is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the legislative object.

---