T S SATYANATH Vs. J THOMAS AND CO
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
J. THOMAS AND CO.
Click here to view full judgement.
Chaudhuri, J. -
(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Cr. PC by the accused-petitioner is directed against an order dated May 12, 1981, passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Case No. C/1231 of 1981. By the order, he has purported to take cognizance of an offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, alleged against the accused-petitioner and has directed issue of process.
(2.) The petitioner has been residing in the disputed premises at No. 1/81, Church Road, P. S. Fort Cochin. He was the managing director and subsequently adviser of M/s. J. Thomas & Co. Pvt. Ltd., No. 11, R.N. Mukherjee Road, P. S. Hare Street, Calcutta, the complainant before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner and his wife had considerable shareholding in the complainant company. A civil suit by the complainant against the petitioner for a claim of Rs. 5,00,000 as damages is pending in the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner has also made a claim of nearly ten lakhs of rupees against the company in the said suit. On the application of the complainant company in the said suit, Mr. Justice Dipak Kumar Sen passed an order directing the complainant company not to disturb the petitioner's possession in the premises mentioned therein and also restrained the petitioner from taking any further steps in Suit No. O. S. 180 of 1981 and I.A. No. 1050 of 1981 filed before the Court of Munsif at Cochin. Against the above background, the complainant company filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 406, IPC, and Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on May 12, 1981. The principal allegation of the complainant company was that the petitioner was allowed by the company to reside in the disputed premises, namely, 1/81, Church Road, Cochin, fitted with furniture and fixtures, initially in his capacity as managing director and subsequently as adviser of the company, but on temination of the said employment as adviser, the petitioner failed to deliver vacant possession of the disputed premises to the company. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in consideration of the initial deposition and materials produced before him by the complainant took cognizance of the offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, but refused to take cognizance of the offence alleged under Section 406, IPC.
(3.) The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and on his behalf it is contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction, particularly territorial, for taking cognizance of the offence. It is alleged that the petition of complaint did not lay foundation of an offence under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act. It is strenuously urged that the petitioner on the date of alleged commission of the offence was not an officer of the company and the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act were not attracted. It is alleged that the petition of complaint was liable to be thrown out for suppression of material facts.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.