RAJAT MOHON DUTTA Vs. PRAN N. MALHAN AND ANR.
LAWS(CAL)-2002-11-34
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 28,2002

RAJAT MOHON DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
PRAN N. MALHAN AND ANR. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Debiprasad Sengupta, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3.10.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Case No. C-254 of 1997 thereby acquitting the accused opposite party of the charge under section 630 of the Companies Act.
(2.) The present appellant being the Manager (Law), Principal Officer and authorised representative of M/s. G.E.C. Alsthom India Ltd. filed a petition of complaint alleging that the accused, who held the post of Chief Executive (Metres and Light fittings) in the Company, opted for voluntary retirement by his letter dated 1.11.95, which was accepted by the Company. As such the accused ceased to be the employee of the Company on and from 1.11.95. The Company being the absolute owner of flat No. 9A, Minto Park Syndicate, 13, Debendra Lal Khan Road, Calcutta, the accused was provided accommodation in the said flat as an employee of the Company, which he continued to enjoy till the date of his resignation. The accused was allowed to occupy the said flat till April, 1996. The accused was thereafter called upon by a letter dated 22.3.96 to vacate the said flat so that other employee of the Company may occupy the same. Even after this the accused was allowed to occupy the said flat till June, 1996. From July 1, 1996 the accused was alleged to have wrongfully and illegally occupied the said flat and in spite of notice to vacate he refused to vacate the same thereby committing an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act.
(3.) The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record and material exhibits came to a finding as follows:- "In the instant case, it has been amply proved that the accused has ceased to be an employee under the Company. Since he is not entitled to the earlier accommodation and since he refused to vacate the premises it has to be held that he wrongfully withheld the flat in question.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.