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

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

The phrase 'officer or employee' under Section 630(1) Companies Act, 1956 must be interpreted to include both existing and past officers and employees, thereby making the wrongful retention of company property after cessation of employment an offence under the Act.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Amrit Lal Chum; Respondent: Devoprasad Dutia Roy; Respondent: Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251-252 of 1986; Other: State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of Calcutta High Court Allowing Applications Under S. 482 Cr PC
Outcome
Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Section 630 Companies Act, 1956, Wrongful Withholding of Company Property, Scope of 'officer or Employee' Under Section 630
Criminal Law Company Law Interpretation of Section 630 Companies Act, 1956 Wrongful Withholding of Company Property Scope of 'officer or Employee' Under Section 630

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amrit Lal Chum

Appellant

Devoprasad Dutia Roy

Respondent

Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251-252 of 1986

Respondent

State of West Bengal

Other

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment of Calcutta High Court Allowing Applications Under S. 482 Cr PC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 630 of Companies Act, 1956 applies to former officers/employees withholding company property after termination of employment
  2. 2 Whether the term 'officer or employee' includes those whose employment has ended

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'officer or employee' under Section 630(1) Companies Act, 1956 must be interpreted to include both existing and past officers and employees, thereby making the wrongful retention of company property after cessation of employment an offence under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Respondents granted time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to furnishing the usual undertaking in court within four weeks.
  • If respondents fail to furnish undertaking or vacate premises, complaint cases against them to proceed and be disposed of expeditiously, but no later than October 31, 1988.