Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) A case under Section 630 of the Companies Act was instituted, against the petitioner, on a complaint in writing made to the Court by the opposite party No. 2, the Hooghly Mills Company Limited. In connection therewith, shortly thereafter, the complainant/company made a separate application under Section 630 Sub-Section (2) of the said Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas South, praying that the petitioner be directed to deliver the possession of the flat in question pending disposal of the case. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the flat to the complainant/company pending disposal of the case. The petitioner challenged the said order in a criminal revision before the Sessions Court. However, the revisional application was dismissed and order passed by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed. Now, the petitioner has challenged the self-same order before this High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction.
(2.) It is the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 herein is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat situated on the 3rd Floor, of Plot-D in Sreekunj, 13, Gurusaday Road, Police Station-Karaya, Kolkata 700 019 with the legal heirs of late Arun Kumar Bajoria, viz., Lata Devi Bajoria, Minakshi Jatia, Nidhi Harshavardhan Bhuwalka, Pooja Mukund Jalan, Survi Bajoria and Mohini Devi Bajoria, against valuable consideration. In part performance of the said agreement the aforesaid legal heirs of late Arun Kumar Bajoria, put the Company in the possession of the said flat. It is the further case of the complainant/company that the accused/petitioner was a Director of the Company from 1988 till November 22, 2008. When he was allowed to use and occupy the said flat by the complainant/company by virtue of holding office as a Director on and from May 1, 2008. The petitioner was to retire by rotation from the Board of Directors in the Annual General Meeting of the Company held on November 22, 2008. He offered himself for re-election at the said Annual General Meeting. The said meeting was duly attended by the petitioner and the members present in the meeting voted against his offer and on and from November 22, 2008 the petitioner ceased to be a Director of the Company. Immediately upon the petitioner being ceased to be a Director of the Company, he was liable to return the said flat to the complainant/company but he failed and neglected to do so. On April 20, 2009 the petitioner was asked by the complainant/company to vacate the said flat and deliver the actual physical possession thereof. In spite of that, he refused to return the possession of the flat. Subsequently, by a letter issued on April 30, 2009 in writing the petitioner was asked by the complainant/company to deliver the vacant possession of the flat to it. Although the petitioner received the said letter, but refused to issue any receipt. The petitioner by wrongfully withholding the said flat is occupying and enjoying the same.
(3.) The aforesaid complaint was filed on August 11, 2009 and cognizance was taken on the same day. After recording of initial depositions, summon was issued against him on August 19, 2009. On January 22, 2010 the petitioner appeared in court through his lawyer and on April 29, 2010 his prayer under Section 205 CrPC was allowed on contest.;