Court upholds eviction orders under Companies Act, finding accused guilty of wrongful withholding company property.

The court upheld the eviction orders under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding the accused guilty of wrongful withholding of company property and rejecting their plea for acquittal. The accused employees were dismissed for participating in an illegal strike and not resuming work, leading to their eviction from company premises. The court emphasized the broad and liberal interpretation of the provision to recover company property wrongfully held by employees, dismissing all revision cases and affirming the conviction and eviction orders.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 in relation to the offence of wrongful withholding of property by employees.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a batch of revision cases arising from a common point of significance regarding the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners, employees of the first respondent-corporation, were dismissed for participating in an illegal strike and not resuming work. The first respondent filed a petition for their eviction under section 630 of the Act. The Special Judge for Economic Offences found the accused guilty, sentencing them to pay a fine and vacate the premises. The accused appealed, arguing that as workmen with pending industrial disputes, eviction would cause hardship. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and eviction order. The accused then filed revision cases contending that section 630 does not apply to them.

The court examined section 630 of the Act, which penalizes wrongful withholding of company property. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it emphasized the objective of preserving company property and ensuring it is not used for unauthorized purposes. The court cited previous judgments to support the broad and liberal interpretation of the provision to advance the remedy and suppress mischief. Disagreeing with certain observations in other cases, the court endorsed the view that section 630 aims to recover company property wrongfully held by employees or their heirs.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the quarters allotted to them did not fall under the company's property, emphasizing that all employees, including clerical and workmen, were considered employees of the first respondent. It concluded that the impugned judgments did not warrant interference, leading to the dismissal of all revision cases. Ultimately, the court upheld the eviction orders under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, finding the accused guilty of wrongful withholding of company property and rejecting their plea for acquittal.

---