Delhi High Court
Texmaco Ltd. vs Ram Dayal And Another on 17 May, 1991
Author: V Bansal
Bench: V Bansal
JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 129 to 132, 134 to 140 and 142 to 155 of 1990, since a common question arises in these cases, namely, whether the impugned order dated February 12, 1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, directing the stay of the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, needs interference by this court.
2. Texmaco Ltd. (for short "the company") is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It had a housing colony for the benefit of its employees which were earlier owned by Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited. However, subsequently, by virtue of a scheme of arrangement, Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. became the property of Texmaco Limited. The employees of Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills became the employees of Texmaco Limited. Ram Dayal was allotted quarters, vide letter dated October 9, 1976, with a stipulation that he would continue to be in occupation of the same during the period he was in service. Ram Dayal retired from service on February 24, 1989, and after his retirement, he did not hand over possession of the quarters to the company and, in this way, he is stated to have committed an offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, besides other offences under the Indian Penal Code. After recording preliminary evidence, the ex-employee, Ram Dayal, was summoned as an accused by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated November 29, 1989.
3. On an application moved by Ram Dayal an order dated September 30, 1989, was passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, directing that the proceedings in these cases will continue but the judgment in this case will not be announced until this court finds that the civil case filed by the accused is mala fide and not bona tide or till the civil court gives its final verdict. This order was challenged by Ram Dayal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who, vide the impugned order, directed that the proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall stand stayed till the decision of the civil litigation between the parties is made.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.
5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar petitions filed by the petitioner against the ex-employees of the company, an order similar to the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged and that the revision petitions were accepted with a direction that the pleas taken up by the ex-employees would be gone into by the trial court. He has referred to the judgment in Criminal. Revision No. 67 of 1990, Texmaco Ltd. v. Arun Kumar Sharma [1991] 70 Comp Case 287 (Delhi) decided on May 25, 1990. He has also submitted that the special leave petition against the said judgment bearing No. 1660-68 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on October 30, 1990.
6. These facts are not controverter by learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It has, however, been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there are additional pleas which have been taken by the respondents regarding which an application has been moved before the trial court and the same pleas have also been raised here by way of additional pleas. These pleas are not being adjudicated upon in this revision petition and the trial court would be taking up pleas taken up by the parties for adjudication in accordance with law. It is, thus, not disputed that the criminal proceedings cannot be stayed merely on account of the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties.
8. In these circumstances, the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated February 12, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, stands set aside. The trial court shall now proceed further in accordance with law.
9. Parties to appear before the trial court on June 21, 1991.
