Summary remedy under Section 630 upheld where no bona fide dispute; authorised agent validly filed complaint.

The article explains that the summary remedy under Section 630 protects company property from wrongful obtainment or withholding and was applied where leave-and-licence documents, affidavit and contemporaneous correspondence established company possession; materials relied on by the ex-occupant did not create a bona fide dispute sufficient to oust criminal summary proceedings, and the trial and appellate convictions were thus reinstated. It also clarifies that a power of attorney and the agent's managerial status conferred authority to file the complaint on behalf of the company, making the complaint valid and maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent convictions and orders made under Section 630 of the Companies Act by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The appeal concerned possession of a flat taken on leave and licence in the name of the company but occupied by an employee who later resigned. The trial court and the appellate court found that the company was the licensee and that the ex-employee was wrongfully withholding the property, convicting him under Section 630. The High Court, while accepting the concurrent findings on several points, nonetheless set aside the convictions on the ground that alleged letters created a bona fide dispute and that the civil court was seised. The Supreme Court reviewed the leave and licence deed, the affidavit and contemporaneous correspondence executed by the ex-employee, the origin and authorship of the letters relied upon to show tenancy, and the evidence regarding how those letters were procured. The Court applied the established scope of Section 630 as a summary remedy to prevent wrongful obtainment or withholding of company property, and examined whether the materials relied on by the ex-employee amounted to a bona fide dispute warranting exclusion of criminal summary proceedings. The Court also considered the authority of the company's agent who filed the complaint and held that the power of attorney and the agency status and managerial rank conferred authority to file the complaint on behalf of the company.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in setting aside the judgments of the courts below; there was no bona fide dispute sufficient to preclude summary proceedings under Section 630, and the complaint was validly filed by the company's authorised agent. The appeal is allowed and the judgments of the trial and appellate courts are restored.

---