Territorial jurisdiction for wrongful withholding of immovable property must follow the situs of the premises, not the company's office.

Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to depend on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the Companies Act contains no special place-of-trial rule for that offence. Section 177 CrPC applied as the ordinary rule that an offence is tried where it is committed, while section 181(4) was confined to criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and could not be extended. In cases involving wrongful withholding of immovable property, the offence is complete at the situs of the premises where possession can be delivered and returned. The Calcutta court therefore lacked jurisdiction because the alleged withholding concerned property situated at Delhi.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Calcutta court had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 in respect of alleged wrongful withholding of immovable property situated at Delhi.

Analysis: The complaint alleged wrongful withholding of the company's residential premises after termination of employment. The Companies Act, 1956 does not provide a special rule fixing the place of trial for such an offence, so the governing provisions were those in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 177 of the Code embodies the ordinary rule that an offence is tried where it is committed. Section 181(4) applies only to criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and could not be extended to an offence under section 630(1)(b). For immovable property, delivery and return of possession can occur only at the place where the property is situated; therefore wrongful withholding is complete at the situs of the premises, not at the company's head office or at the place from which correspondence or employment administration was conducted.

Conclusion: The offence, if any, was committed at Delhi and not at Calcutta. The Calcutta court had no jurisdiction to try the complaint, and the revisional application succeeded.

---