2002 (7) TMI 723 - HC - Companies Law

Appeal allowed, conviction upheld under Companies Act. Former officer found guilty of withholding company flat.

Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee

Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee - [2004] 50 SCL 247 (CAL.) Issues:1. Appeal against acquittal under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act.2. Contradictory observations in judgment.3. Interpretation of section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act.4. Evidence of tenancy and wrongful withholding of property.5. Failure to vacate premises post-retirement.6. Applicability of judgment by learned Additional Sessions Judge.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the accused under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The accused, a former officer of M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd., was alleged to have wrongfully withheld possession of a flat belonging to the company post-retirement. The trial court had convicted the accused, but the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him, leading to the present appeal.2. The judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge was criticized for containing contradictory observations. The judge made remarks that appeared to be in conflict with the evidence presented, such as questioning the continuity of the company's tenancy despite clear evidence to the contrary. The judgment was deemed cryptic and the reasoning behind the acquittal was questioned.3. Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act was invoked in the case, which provides for the punishment of any officer wrongfully withholding company property. The provision allows for fines and even imprisonment if the property is not delivered up as ordered by the court.4. The evidence presented established that the accused was provided with the flat as part of his employment terms, with the obligation to vacate it upon retirement. Documents and witness testimonies confirmed the tenancy arrangement between the company and the accused, refuting the accused's claims of direct tenancy with the landlady.5. Despite retirement, the accused failed to vacate the premises as required, disregarding repeated requests from the company. This unlawful occupation led to the company filing a complaint under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, resulting in the initial conviction by the trial court.6. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was overturned, reinstating the conviction and sentencing of the accused. The accused was found guilty of wrongfully withholding company property and was ordered to pay a fine and deliver vacant possession of the flat within a specified period. Non-compliance would lead to further legal actions against the accused.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was upheld, and the accused was directed to comply with the court's orders within the specified timelines to avoid further consequences.