TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Special Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints; (ii) whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applied to the petitioners, including as workmen or ex-employees, and whether their continued occupation of company accommodation after termination or resignation amounted to wrongful withholding of company property; (iii) whether the dispute was purely civil so as to bar criminal proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the Special Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.
Analysis: The notifications issued under the proviso to section 11(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 established the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur as a Special Court for offences under the relevant enactments with jurisdiction over the entire State of Rajasthan. The jurisdictional objection was therefore distinguishable from authorities dealing with ordinary venue rules and did not apply on the facts.
Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applied to the petitioners, including as workmen or ex-employees, and whether their continued occupation of company accommodation after termination or resignation amounted to wrongful withholding of company property.
Analysis: The provision was treated as a remedial and quasi-criminal provision intended to secure speedy return of company property wrongfully retained by an employee or ex-employee. The fact that the petitioners had been terminated or had resigned did not take them outside its ambit. Even assuming they were workmen, they remained employees who had been allotted accommodation in that capacity, and no separate regime governing allotment or retention was shown.
Conclusion: Section 630 applied to the petitioners, and their continued possession of the accommodation was wrongful.
Issue (iii): Whether the dispute was purely civil so as to bar criminal proceedings.
Analysis: The pendency of disputes about termination or service conditions did not prevent prosecution where the core complaint was wrongful retention of company premises. The criminal remedy under section 630 was held to be independent of any civil or industrial proceedings relating to termination.
Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were maintainable and the civil nature objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of conviction and the directions to vacate the company premises were upheld, and all revision petitions were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to employees and ex-employees who wrongfully withhold company property after termination or resignation, and the pendency of civil or industrial disputes does not bar criminal proceedings for such wrongful retention.
TaxTMI 
