AMRIT LAL CHUM versus DEVOPRASAD DUTTA ROY AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 20-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

AMRIT LAL CHUM 
v. 
DEVOPRASAD DUTIA ROY AND ANR. ETC. 
JANUARY 20, 1988 
[A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND 
L.M. SHARMA, JJ.) 
Companies Act, 1956: Section 630-lnterpretation of-Officer/ 
employee of company allotted flat, refusing to vacate, after retirement-
Prosecution of such officer/employee-Whether permissible. 
A 
B 
c 
.)-
Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the court, on 
~ the complaint of the Company, or any creditor or contributory thereof, 
to punish an officer or elJlployee of such company, by levy of fine, if 
such officer or employee wrongfully obtains possession of, or having 
obtained possession, wrongfully withholds or knowingly misapplies, the 
property of the company; and also order him to deliver up or refund, D 
within a stipulated time, such property or, in default, to suffer 
imprisonment. 
In these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court, the 
question for consideration was as to the scope and interpretation of this 
provision. 
Allowing the appeals, 
E 
HELD: Section 630 or the Companies Act, 1956 plainly makes it 
an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to 
':-: 
use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully F 
·nretains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment. It 
1 the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of 
the company after termination of the employment, which is an offence 
under s. 630(1) of the Act. [785B-C] 
There is, therefore, no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the G 
term "officer or employee" appearing in sub-section (t) of s. 630 ofthe 
Act as meaning only the eii:isting officers and employees and not those 
whose employment has been terminated. [785C-D] 
Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & 
Anr., ll987) 4 SCC 361, followed. 
H 
783 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
[Time granted to respondents till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises 
subject to the furnishing of usual undertaking. In the event of failure to 
furnish the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time 
stipulated, the cases against the respondents to continue and the trial 
court to proceed with the trial and dispose them of expeditiously, but 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
not later than 31.10.88.] [785G-H; 786A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 368 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.1986 of the Calcutta 
High Court in Crl. R. No. 1181of1985. 
WITH 
Criminal ~ppeals Nos. 251-252of1986. 
'~ 
From th& Judgment and Order dated 26. 7 .1975 of the Calcutta 
High Court in Crl1 Revn. Nos. 222 and 448 of 1985. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and H.K. Puri for the Appellant. 
Parijat Sinha for the Respondent in Crl. A. No. 368 of 1986. 
S.K. Kapur, Ranjan Dev and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the 
Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251-252of1986. 
Tapas Roy and D.K. Sinha for the State of West Bengal. 
D.K. Sinha, K.R. Nambiar, Ms. Reba Roy, K.K. Lahitri and 
Ms Apsi Ditta for the Interveners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
After hearing Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for 
respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 at quite 
some length, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the 
G 
one expressed by this Court in the recent judgment in Baldev Krishna 
Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 361 
overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal 
Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, [1987] 61 Company Cases 211 as to the 
scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. 
The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case has placed a beneficent con-
H 
sttuction on the provisions contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act 
-
iillt 
~ 
• 
AMRIT LAL v. D.D. ROY 
785 
and according to it the term 'officer or employee' in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 
must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and emp-
loyees of a company but also to include the.past officers and employees 
of the Company. It has also taken the view that the words 'any such 
property' in cl. (b) thereof qualify the words 'any property of a com-
pany' appearing in cl. (a). As observed in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case, 
s. 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee 
of a company who was permitted to use the property of the compaay 
during his employment, wrongfully retains or occupies the same after 
the termination of his employment. It is the wrongful withholding of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.