Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 120 - HC - Indian LawsWrong withholding of property - father of petitioner had joined service of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd and on 28.12.1978 had been allotted quarter - There was an application to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the quarter but he failed to do so - After death of her father, the petitioner did not vacate the quarter; she wrongfully withheld the same - Respondent filed complaint under Section 630 - Appellant contends that Respondent did not have the locus standi to file the complaint - Held that:- Section 630 of the said Act had been engrafted in the Legislature to provide speedy relief to a company where its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an 'employee' or an 'officer' or a 'past employee or an officer' or 'legal heirs and representatives' deriving their colour and content from such an 'employee or officer' in so far as the occupation and possession of the property belonging to the company is concerned. The failure to deliver property back to the employer on the termination, resignation, superannuation or death of any employee, would amount to wrongful withholding that property giving rise to an actionable claim under Section 630 of the said Act. A broader, liberal as also a purposeful interpretation has to be given to Section 630 in furtherance of the object and purpose for which this legislation has been engrafted. The scheme clearly shows that respondent has become the owner of the quarter in question as also the employer of the father of the petitioner; all rights and liabilities of the transferor-company stood vested with the transferee-company, i.e., respondent - This Court has already returned a finding on the first issue i.e. M/s Texmaco Limited being the transferee company and having taken over all assets and liabilities of the said Mill which has been approved not only by the Delhi High Court but also by the Kolkata High Court, it was well within its right to file this complaint. - time period could be extended for vacation of the quarter but he declined the offer and sought an order on merits stating that this revision petition be decided on its merits - Decided against Petitioner.
|