1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rejects petition to halt criminal proceedings, stresses speedy trial & burden of proof on prosecution</h1> The court dismissed the petition to quash or stay criminal proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial ... Penalty for wrongful with holding of property Issues:Petition to quash criminal proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 or stay proceedings until resolution of dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Analysis:The petitioner, an Industrial Relations Executive, was allotted company accommodation which he failed to vacate leading to termination of services and criminal proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. He claimed to be a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the termination and asserting entitlement to the flat until valid termination. The petitioner sought to quash or stay criminal proceedings until resolution by the Labour Court. The respondent contended the flat was not a condition of service, the petitioner was not a 'workman,' and had protracted the trial. The court noted the fundamental right to speedy trial, reluctance to stay ongoing criminal cases, and the burden of proof on the prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act.The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases once evidence recording begins. It highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act, stating the defense can be established through cross-examination or evidence. The court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash or stay the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of continuing the trial without prejudice to either party. The court declined to delve into extensive case law cited by both parties, emphasizing the need to decide each case on its merits and circumstances.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, discharged the rule, vacated the interim stay, and directed the parties to appear for trial continuation. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was instructed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter within six months. The judgment upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and the burden of proof on the prosecution under section 630 of the Companies Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
