DILIP CHATURVEDI Vs. STAR PAPER MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and the learned A. G. A. for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the allegation that the applicant was the employee of opposite party No. 1 and was given quarters in lieu of the same. That the services of the applicant have been terminated from May 23, 1999, but he has not vacated the quarters. That, therefore, the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act was filed. The applicant raised two objections before the 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 have jurisdiction to try the complaint. The second contention is that there is an arbitration clause and, therefore, the complaint is barred. The contentions of the applicant were repelled by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, and the revision filed against that order by the applicant was rejected by the IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut. The applicant therefore, approached this court.