https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109663 Section 630 of the Companies Act was applied to an ex-employee who continued occupying company premises after service ended. A complaint filed by the company's security officer under board authority was treated as maintainable despite an imperfect cause title. The court held that later Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act notifications could not validate prior wrongful occupation, and a bare tenancy plea did not oust the criminal court's jurisdiction or require resort to the Small Cause Court. The delivery-up order under section 630(2) was treated as a proper discretionary remedy, and no prejudice was shown from the manner in which documents were admitted at trial. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:40:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109663 Section 630 of the Companies Act was applied to an ex-employee who continued occupying company premises after service ended. A complaint filed by the company's security officer under board authority was treated as maintainable despite an imperfect cause title. The court held that later Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act notifications could not validate prior wrongful occupation, and a bare tenancy plea did not oust the criminal court's jurisdiction or require resort to the Small Cause Court. The delivery-up order under section 630(2) was treated as a proper discretionary remedy, and no prejudice was shown from the manner in which documents were admitted at trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109663