Companies Act, 1956 , Section 630 - Civil court has, in spite of there being no bona fide dispute, issued an order of temporary injunction in respect of the disputed property - In such a case, the pendency of the civil suit and any interim relief’s granted therein would not bar criminal prosecution under Section 630 - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452. 2020 SCeJ 34 - Download
Companies Act, 1956 , Section 630 - Whether an order could be made under Section 630(2) prior to final disposal of the complaint under Section 630(1)? - Where the Magistrate has found that prima facie the company has a right to possession of the disputed property, he may grant interlocutory relief under Section 630(2) prior to conclusion of the trial under Section 630(1) - Section 630 has to be given a liberal interpretation so as to facilitate expeditious recovery of the company's property - Given that the primary object of Section 630 is to provide a speedy mechanism for restoration of wrongfully withheld property to companies, we find that the provision should be construed as far as possible to facilitate a remedy in favour of the aggrieved company and to prevent the wrongful retention of the property for an unduly long period by the accused - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452. 2020 SCeJ 34 - Download
Companies Act, 1956, Section 630 - The term 'property of the company' has to be construed widely having regard to the beneficial object of the Section - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452 2020 SCeJ 34 - Download
Companies Act, 1956 - Section 630 - The term 'property of the company' has to be construed widely having regard to the beneficial object of the Section - High Court has gone against the spirit of the provision, by strictly interpreting Section 630 to mean that the appellant company must have title by way of ownership to the disputed property and that the accused should have been in possession of the flat as a perquisite of his service - Section 630 nowhere requires that the company should have title to the property - The emphasis is on whether the accused has obtained wrongful possession of the property which defeats the company's lawful right of exclusive possession, even though the property as such may not belong to the company but to a third-party landlord or licensor, as enunciated by this Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi vs. Shipping Corporation of India Limited, (1987) 4 SCC 361, Atul Mathur vs. Atul Kalra, (1989) 4 SCC 514 - Companies Act, 2013, Section 452. 2020 SCeJ 34 - Download