Khazan Singh vs State & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 715 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of Order: 7th February, 2011
+ Crl. Rev. Petition No. 21/2011
%                                                                      07.02.2011

        Khazan Singh                                           ... Petitioner
                                 Through: Mr. Hemendra Singh Kashyap, Adv.

                 Versus


        State & Anr.                                       ... Respondents
                                 Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
                                 Mr. Saurabh Seth & Mr. Vijayender Kumar,
                                 Advocates for R-2


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORDER (ORAL)

This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner

assailing an order dated 23rd November, 2010 of learned Additional Sessions

Judge dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Proceedings against the

petitioner were initiated under Section 630 of the Companies Act as the

petitioner did not vacate the premises of the employer despite termination of

services. The premises was allotted to the petitioner in 1975 by virtue of his

employment in M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills. M/s Birla

Textiles Mill by virtue of Company Petition No. 59/1982 acquired proprietary

rights over the premises in question on 30th November, 1986. The petitioner

ceased to be in service of the company in 1997 as the mills closed down

under an order of Supreme Court dated 30th November, 1996. Since then the

petitioner was not vacating the quarter despite he not being in service of the

company. A case under Section 630 of the Companies Act was filed against

the petitioner and the petitioner was convicted by the learned ACMM and

directions were given to handover the premises to the company. Against this,

the petitioner preferred an appeal before the ASJ which was dismissed by the

learned ASJ after considering the entire evidence vide impugned order. The

petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this revision.

The sole ground taken by the petitioner is that the learned ASJ in

another case has held that the scheme of amalgamation of M/s Birla Textiles

Mill and M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and taking over of

assets was not final and therefore it could not be said that complaint was filed

by a competent person. The said judgment of the learned trial Court has

been stayed by this Court in Crl.L.P.No. 26/2011 on 19th January, 2011.

Considering the fact that the petitioner ceased to be in service since

1997, the petitioner has no right to continue in the premises after having

ceased to be in service. I find no ground to interfere in the order of the

learned Appellate Court. The petition is hereby dismissed.

February 07, 2011                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn