https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100678 At the summons stage, complaint material and initial deposition were sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence for wrongful withholding of company property under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, even though the accused was described as adviser rather than by the statutory label of officer. The court held that the inclusive definition of officer could not justify quashing before evidence. Territorial jurisdiction at Calcutta was also upheld because the appointment, accountability and return of the property were referable to the company's office there, so cognizance could properly be taken. The proceeding was therefore not quashed, leaving factual disputes open for trial. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100678 At the summons stage, complaint material and initial deposition were sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence for wrongful withholding of company property under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, even though the accused was described as adviser rather than by the statutory label of officer. The court held that the inclusive definition of officer could not justify quashing before evidence. Territorial jurisdiction at Calcutta was also upheld because the appointment, accountability and return of the property were referable to the company's office there, so cognizance could properly be taken. The proceeding was therefore not quashed, leaving factual disputes open for trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 02 Jun 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100678