TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere filed by respondent No. 1 against them for refusal to vacate the premises. The magistrate found them guilty and by his common order dated 24th August, 2000 ordered them to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent No. 1, in addition to the imposition of fine of Rs. 100 each of the petitioners-accused. 4. Petitioners accused challenged that order by filing appeals but the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dismissed those appeals on 27th September, 2001, hence these revision applications. 5. In the meantime, these petitioners-accused had filed writ petition before this court vide Writ Petition No. 752 of 2001 in which Justice Palkar passed an order on 18th August, 2001 giving certain directions to the Sessions Judge. 6. Admitted facts are that the respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises, i.e., the company registered under the Act and all the petitioners-accused are occupants of the company premises either as employee of the respondent No. 1 or legal heirs of the original employee of the respondent No. 1. They are occupying those premises pursuant to an agreement entered into between the employer and the employee. Respondent No. 1 gave notice to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... scope and object to section 630 has been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. [1995] 17 CLA 90/[1995] SCC (Cri.) 590. (iii)That both the courts below that is the trial court as well as the appellate court did not commit any error of law and concurrent findings of fact and also concurrent findings of law does not entitle the petitioners-accused to file these revision applications. (iv)That the Government decision to protect the workers in mills with reference to their occupied premises cannot come in the way of the legal rights conferred upon the company. (v)That closure of the mill - respondent No. 1 does not affect the right of mill respondent No. 1 exist as such and consequently the revision applications were liable to be dismissed. 7.2 Section 630 of the Act reads as under : "Penalty for wrongful withholding property.- (1) If any officer or employee of a company- (a)wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or (b)having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies and clause (b) cannot be interpreted as an inseparable part of clause (a). Both the clause (a) and clause (b ) are required to be interpreted separately, otherwise the very purpose of the Act will be frustrated. Therefore, clause (b) can be invoked when having entered into possession lawfully it is wrongfully withheld by an employee. 11. It is true that in clause (b) of section 630(1) the words are "having any such property in his possession" are used. But since clauses (a) and (b) are separated by the word 'or', it is clear that two contingencies are covered by section 630, namely, officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtaining possession of any property of a company or secondly having such property in his possession wrongfully withholding it. If argument of Mr. Samant is accepted, then no company will be able to recover property given to its employee whenever there is refusal on the part of the employee to deliver it back. Such an interpretation which frustrate the entire object and purpose of section 630 cannot be accepted. The gist of clause (a) is wrongfully obtaining of property and the gist of clause (b) is wrongfully withholding it and refusal to hand over bac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... makes it an offence if any officer or employee of a company having any property of the company in his possession knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by the Act. That would primarily apply to the present officers and employees and may also include past officers and employees. There is, therefore, no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term "officer or employee" appearing in sub-section (1) of section 630. It is quite evident that clauses (a) and (b) are separated by the word 'or' and, therefore, are clearly disjunctive. 9. The High Court of Calcutta in Amritlal Chum's case (supra) obviously fell into an error in seeking to curtail the ambit of section 630(1)(b) by giving a restrictive meaning to the term 'officer or employee' which must take its colour from the context in which it appears. The whole object of enacting sub-section (1) of section 630 is the preservation of the property of a company by the creation of two distinct offences by clauses (a) and (b) which arise under different sets of circumstances, and it would be rendered nugatory by projecting clause (a) into clause (b). There is also no war....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by the Act. That would primarily apply to the present officers and employees and may also include past officers and employees. There is, therefore, no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term 'officer or employee' appearing in sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Act. It is quite evident that clauses (a) and (b) are separated by the word 'or' and, therefore, are clearly disjunctive.' [emphasis supplied] [p. 171] Number of other judgments were cited by the petitioners in support of the aforesaid contentions but in my opinion the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court are sufficient to meet the arguments of Mr. Samant and, therefore, for these reasons it cannot be accepted that clause (b) of section 630(1) is qualified by clause (a) of section 630(1). Both are different and distinct offences and, therefore, it is not necessary for the respondents to come up with a case that the petitioners before this court have obtained wrongful possession of the property. They can succeed if they show that even if the property so obtained wrongfully in the beginning by virtue of em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act does not give such a right to the employee nor there is any provision in the Companies Act which gives an employee a right to retain the property on the above pretext. 14. Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Samant also relied upon the same judgment of Supreme Court in Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain's case (supra), and particularly following observations of the Supreme Court in support of his contention : ".....If an employee or a past employee or anyone claiming the right of occupancy under them were to continue to 'hold' the property belonging to the company, after the right to be in occupation has ceased for one reason or the other, it would not only create difficulties for the company, which shall not be able to allot that property to its other employees, but would also cause hardship for the employee awaiting allotment and defeat the intention of the Legislature....." (p. 176) From the aforesaid observation, Mr. Samant tried to contend that unless the company is required to allot the residential premises to its other employees, it cannot claim back possession of the company's property from the applicants. With respect, I am unable to agree with Mr. Samant. Repea....