https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458765 A complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was maintainable when filed by an authorised company officer on the company's behalf, and no prejudice arose from that form. Later State planning notifications could not retrospectively legalise an occupation that had already become wrongful after cessation of service and failure to vacate. A tenancy plea did not oust criminal jurisdiction where the room was allotted only during employment and no independent tenancy was shown. The court treated the delivery-up power under section 630(2) as discretionary, but upheld its exercise to restore company premises. The penal character of the provision did not justify defeating recovery, and no trial prejudice arose from the document-admission procedure. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Nov 2024 13:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458765 A complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was maintainable when filed by an authorised company officer on the company's behalf, and no prejudice arose from that form. Later State planning notifications could not retrospectively legalise an occupation that had already become wrongful after cessation of service and failure to vacate. A tenancy plea did not oust criminal jurisdiction where the room was allotted only during employment and no independent tenancy was shown. The court treated the delivery-up power under section 630(2) as discretionary, but upheld its exercise to restore company premises. The penal character of the provision did not justify defeating recovery, and no trial prejudice arose from the document-admission procedure. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458765