https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103156 Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to depend on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the Companies Act contains no special place-of-trial rule for that offence. Section 177 CrPC applied as the ordinary rule that an offence is tried where it is committed, while section 181(4) was confined to criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and could not be extended. In cases involving wrongful withholding of immovable property, the offence is complete at the situs of the premises where possession can be delivered and returned. The Calcutta court therefore lacked jurisdiction because the alleged withholding concerned property situated at Delhi. en-us Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:15:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103156 Territorial jurisdiction for a complaint under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to depend on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the Companies Act contains no special place-of-trial rule for that offence. Section 177 CrPC applied as the ordinary rule that an offence is tried where it is committed, while section 181(4) was confined to criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust and could not be extended. In cases involving wrongful withholding of immovable property, the offence is complete at the situs of the premises where possession can be delivered and returned. The Calcutta court therefore lacked jurisdiction because the alleged withholding concerned property situated at Delhi. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103156