Interim delivery of possession refused where disputed entitlement required trial before final relief could be granted.

Interim delivery of possession before trial was refused where a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 involved contested issues of allotment, employment, termination, and the accused's duty to return company property. The court held that the special summary remedy under Section 630 does not justify bypassing adjudication on merits at the interlocutory stage. Powers under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are exceptional and must be confined to post-inquiry or post-trial orders, so pre-trial restoration of possession would effectively grant final relief before determination of entitlement. Delay in the proceedings alone was not enough to warrant such relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court should direct interim delivery of possession under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during the pendency of a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a special and summary remedy for recovery of a company's property from past employees, but that does not justify bypassing the normal course of trial at the interlocutory stage. Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the court to make orders regarding property after inquiry or trial, and its exercise must remain confined to exceptional situations. Where the complaint itself turns on contested questions of allotment, employment, termination, and the accused's obligation to hand back possession, granting possession before completion of the trial would effectively pre-empt adjudication on the merits. The pendency and delay in the proceedings, by themselves, were not treated as a sufficient ground to short-circuit the trial.

Conclusion: Interim restoration of possession was not warranted and the petitioner's request under Section 452 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The request for pre-trial delivery of possession was declined, and the trial court's refusal to grant such relief was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Interlocutory power to deliver possession should be exercised only in exceptional cases and cannot be used to grant final relief before determination of the disputed entitlement in a contested trial.

---