SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 467

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, G.P.MATHUR, S.RAJENDRA BABU
Lalita Jalan – Appellant
Versus
Bombay Gas Co. LTD. – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses the application of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, which pertains to the wrongful withholding of property of a company. The key points are as follows:

  1. Scope of Section 630: The section targets officers or employees of a company who wrongfully obtain, withhold, or misapply the company's property. It is a penal provision aimed at facilitating the recovery of property and penalizing wrongful withholding (!) (!) (!) .

  2. Applicability to Past and Present Employees: The provision primarily applies to current officers or employees who wrongfully withhold property during or after their employment. However, it also extends to their legal heirs or persons claiming through them if they continue to possess or withhold property after the employee's employment has ended or upon the employee's death (!) (!) (!) .

  3. Family Members and Heirs: Family members living with a former or deceased employee who have come into possession with their consent and have not vacated the premises can be held liable under Section 630. The liability is based on their continued possession and withholding of the company's property, which impedes the company's rights (!) (!) .

  4. Strict Construction of Penal Provisions: Although Section 630 involves penalties, it is not a typical criminal statute. Its primary purpose is the recovery of property, and it should be interpreted strictly, especially regarding the inclusion of family members or heirs


JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated January 18, 2002 of High Court of Bombay by which the petition preferred by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed. The matter has been referred to a three-Judge Bench in view of the apparent conflict in the two decisions of this Court in Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 732 and J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. Bharti Matha Mishra & Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 700.

3. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., respondent No.1, had taken on lease a flat in a building known as "Hari Bhavan", 64, Pedder Road, Bombay. Shri N.K. Jalan, in his capacity as Director of the Company, was allotted the said flat. Ashok Kumar Jalan (accused No.1 and respondent No.2 in the present appeal) is son of Shri N.K. Jalan. Appellant No. 1, Smt. Lalita Jalan (accused No.2) is wife of Ashok Kumar Jalan and appellant No.2, Siddharth Jalan (accused No.3) is his son. Shri N.K. Jalan died in 1967. The company purchased the flat and became owner thereof in April, 1991. It filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinaft




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top