|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAMAL KISHOR MISHRA, Advocate, for the applicant.
R. P. AGARWAL, Advocate, for the opposite party 1.
JUDGMENT
B. K. RATHI, J. - I have heard Sri Kamal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel
for the applicant, Sri R. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party
No. 1 and the learned AGA for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicant under
section 630 of Indian
Companies Act on the allegation that the applicant was the employee of opposite
party No. 1 and was given a quarter in lieu of the same. That the services
of the applicant have been terminated from 23.5.1999 but he has not vacated
the quarter. That, therefore, complaint under section
630 of Indian Companies Act was filed. The applicant raised two objections
before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, where the complaint is
pending.
3. Firstly, he has alleged that the registered office of the company is
at Calcutta and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court or the courts subordinate
to it only has jurisdiction to try the complaint. Second, contention is
that there is arbitration clause and, therefore, the complaint is barred.
The contentions of the applicant were repealed by the Special C.J.M., Meerut,
and the revision filed against that order by the applicant was rejected
by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The applicant therefore, approached
this court.
4. It is contended that the registered office of the opposite party No.
1 company is at Calcutta. Therefore, it is argued that according to section
2 (11)(10), the complaint could be filed in a court subordinate to the
High Court of Calcutta. Both the courts repealed the contention for the
reason that this section does not apply to a criminal complaint which can
be filed in the court having territorial jurisdiction according to Cr.P.C.
The property in dispute is situated at Saharanpur and the cause of action
also arose at Saharanpur, and, therefore, the contention that the Special
C.J.M., Meerut, has no jurisdiction to try the case - cannot be accepted.
5. As regard the second contention, it does not require a detailed discussion.
There is arbitration clause, but that is regarding the dispute relating
to the services of the applicant and not regarding the vacation of the house.
Apart from this the criminal proceedings cannot be barred by an arbitration
agreement. Therefore, the complaint under section
630 of the Indian Companies Act is not barred by the arbitration clause.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also contended before me that the
liability is of civil nature and complaint under
section 630 of Indian
Companies Act is not maintainable. In support of the argument, the learned
counsel for the applicant has referred the case of Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan
v. S. K. Saraf, (1999) 1 Comp LJ 1 (SC) : (1999) SCC (Crl) 20. I have carefully
gone through the law laid down in that case. There was an agreement and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the appellant in that case joined
the services mainly because he was offered a flat in Trivoli Court. The
employment was given for five years and there was further agreement that
in case of termination of service at the instance of company employee/his
wife shall continue to enjoy rent free accommodation during their lifetime.
In the light of this argument, it was held that the liability is of civil
nature and a suit for eviction was also pending. This authority has, therefore,
no help to the facts of the case.
7. The petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
|
