AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. versus DAS JOHN PETER & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 20-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010) 8 S.C.R. 764 
AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. 
V. 
DAS JOHN PETER & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2010) 
JULY 20, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 142- Inherent power 
of Supreme Court -
Servant quarter attached to the 
C company's flat given to respondent-employee by virtue of his 
service, with a condition to hand over the possession on 
retirement - Retirement in 1992 - Possession not handed 
over by respondent - An undertaking given in 2000 to 
handover peaceful possession within one month - However, 
D possession still not given - Complaint filed by appellant-
company under s.630 of Companies Act - Dismissed on 
technical ground by trial court - High Court upheld the order 
of trial court -
On appeal, held: Courts below erred in 
dismissing the complaint on technical ground - There was 
E manifest illegality in the impugned orders which resulted in 
palpable injustice to the company curable under Article 142 
of the Constitution - It was incumbent on the respondent to 
honour the undertaking given in 2000 - Equity also not in 
favour of respondent as he showed adamant and dilatory 
F attitude - More than 18 years passed since his retirement and 
he still remained in possession of the quarter - Respondent 
directed to vacate the quarter- Equity- Companies Act, 1956 
- s.630 - Licence. 
The appellant-company filed a complaint, inter a/ia, 
G under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against 
accused-respondent no.1. The allegation in the complaint 
was that respondent no.1 was working as a caretaker in 
the appellant-company to look after the company's flat. 
Respondent no.1 was alloted a servant quarter near 
H 
764 
AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. v. DAS JOHN 765 
PETER & ORS. 
garage belonging to the appellant-company by virtue of A 
his service in the company. He retired from service of the 
appellant-company on 6.3.1992. However, he did not 
vacate the quarter and instead gave its possession to his 
daughter, accused-respondent no.2. A written 
undertaking was said to have been tendered by 
B 
respondent no.1 on 5.1.2000 to the effect that he would 
vacate the quarter within one month thereof. However, he 
did not vacate the quarter. 'The complaint was thus filed 
by the company through the factory manager on the 
basis of the power of attorney executed by the company c 
on 31.12.2001. The trial court dismissed the complaint on 
the ground that the power of attorney was a fictitious 
document. The High Court rejected the appellant's 
application for leave to appeal. Aggrieved, the company 
filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Power of Attorney was executed on 
31.12.2001, and was scribed on a stamp paper purchased 
D 
on 18.4.2002. But it was notarised on 5.6.2002 and not on 
E 
5.6.2001 as was noted by the trial court. The Rubber 
stamp seal put by the notary clearly depicted it as 
5.6.2002. The examination of the originals of the 
resolution dated 31.12.2001 as also Power of Attorney 
executed in favour o,f the factory manager lead to th~ 
F 
conclusion that the Power of Attorney was genuine and 
it duly authorised the factory manager to file and 
prosecute the complaint against the accused. [Paras 18, 
19) [771-F-H] 
2.1. Admittedly, neither the trial court nor the High 
G 
Court had gone into the merits of the matter. A reading 
of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 makes it clear 
that a criminal complaint seeking possession of the 
servant quarter at the instance of company against the 
H 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A accused was maintainable and cognizan~e thereof was 
rightly taken by the Magistrate but he committed a grave 
error in rejecting it on technical grounds, instead of 
deciding it on merits. [Paras 20, 23] [772-C; 773-E] 
8 
2.2. It was not disputed that the accused no.1 was 
appointed as a caretaker to look after the flat of the 
appellant/company. It was further not disputed that 
accused no. 1 had retired from the company w.e.f. 
6.3.1992. At the time of entering into service, he had 
entered into agreement with the company on 22.9.1980, 
C which specifically granted permission to the company to 
revoke the licence of the servant quarter at any time and 
to take the possession. On 5.1.2000, accused no.1 wrote 
a letter to the Chairman of the Company specifically and 
categorically agreeing to vacate the servant quarter by 
D 31.1.2000. Thus, it was incumbent on his par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.