TEXMACO LTD Vs. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these criminal revision petitions same type of orders have been made by the learned A.C.M.M. and in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and thus they are being disposed of by this order.

(2.) Facts in all these cases, in brief are that M/s. Texmaco Limited, petitioner in all these revision petitions had filed criminal complaints against its various employees separately pleading that petitioner-company had acquired the proprietory rights in respect of the mills as well as the housing colonies by virtue of a scheme of arrangement arrived at between the complainant-company and M(s. Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. in pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on January 3, 1983 in Company Petition No. 59 of 1982. I am taking the facts from Criminal Revision No. 671 of 1990. Except for name of the accused, all other facts are similar in all the complaints. So, it was pleaded that accused had joined M/s. Birla Cotton, Spining & Weaving Mills Ltd. as its. employee and by virtue of the aforesaid taking over the said company by the petitioner, the respondent accused became its employee. It was pleaded that accused had been allowed residential accommodation in the residential colony of M/s. Biria Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. as an employee and he was to surrender the said accommodation on his termination of services with the said Company and respondent had also signed the allotment letter in that connection after the petitioner became owner of the M/s. Biria Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and the properties belonging to the said mills and in that letter of allotment it was clearly sipulated that the said residential accommodation allotted to him will .remain with him till he remains in the service and thereafter he would give peaceful vacant possession of the said accommodation to the petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that respondent having failed to handover the vacant possession of the premises after he ceased to be an employee of the Company, he bad committed an offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act and also under Sections 441, 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The accused had moved an application before the learned A.C., MM seeking stay of I he criminal case pleading that he had already instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction to the effect that he is in possession of the said quarter as a tenant and was not liable to be di possessed from the said quarter except in accordance with law and he had obtained a temporary injunction against the petitioner company restraining the petitioner-company from dis-possessing the respondent forcibly. The learned A. C. M. M. passed the order that the proceeding in the criminal complaint would continue but no final judgement would be given till the matter was finally deci- ded by the civil Court.