Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

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

Decided
20 January 1988
Judges listed
A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, L.M. SHARMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 783 · 1988 INSC 18
Also cited as
  • (1988) 2 SCC 269 (5 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1988 SC 733 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 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 consttuction on the provisions contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act 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 employees 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 company' 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 such property, meaning the property of the company after termination of the employment, which is an offence under s. 630(1)(b) of the Act. The construction placed by this Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case is the only construction possible. There is therefore no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term 'officer or empldyee' appearing in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act as meaning only the, existing officers and employees and not those whose employment have been terminated. The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case has expressly overruled the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, supra, against which these appeals have been filed and upheld the consistent view to the contrary taken by the High Court of Bombay in a series of cases. [See Harkishin Lakhimal Gidw_ani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh, [1982] 52 Company Cases 1 and Govind T. Jagtiani v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi, I 1984] 56 Company Cases 329 I.

pp. 784–785, margin F

Accordingly, these appeals must succeed and are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under

p. 785, margin E

s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are set aside. ~ Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation. We grant the respondents time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said undertaking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas shall continue. In the event of respondents' failure to file the ur1dertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time specified, the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than October 31, 1988.

pp. 785–786, margin E

The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited is not pressed. N.P.V. Appeals allowed.

p. 786, margin A