Bombay High Court
Anthony Maurice LopesversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that the applicant wrongfully withheld the company premises and that Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 is applicable, affirming the conviction.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil Tikam, was convicted under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 for wrongfully withholding a company‑owned residential premises that had been allotted to his father, an employee, and which he continued to occupy after his father's retirement and death. The applicant contended that he was a tenant of the company and that the earlier civil suit and the first criminal complaint had been dismissed, rendering the subsequent complaint untenable. The court examined the allotment agreement dated 30 September 1959, found no tenancy or licence agreement, and held that the premises were employee accommodation that must be vacated upon superannuation. It further held that Section 630 applies to a legal heir who continues to withhold the property and that the dismissal of the earlier complaint did not bar a fresh complaint. Consequently, the court found no error in the lower courts' findings and rejected the revision application.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to the legal heir of an employee who continues to occupy company property.
- Whether the applicant can be considered a tenant of the company, thereby exempting him from liability under Section 630.
- Whether the dismissal of an earlier criminal complaint for want of prosecution precludes filing a subsequent complaint for the same alleged wrongful withholding.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956 — s. 630(1)(b)
Subjects
- Companies Act
- Section 630
- wrongful withholding
- employee accommodation
- criminal revision
- tenancy claim
- property possession
- conviction
Judgment
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2026
VAISHALI
ANIL Anthony Maurice Lopes ...Applicant/s
TIKAM Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM ________________________________________________________________
Date:
2026.09.08
11:37:35 +0530 Mr. Chandraprakash Tripathi Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Raghav Dharmadhikari a/w. Leena Shah a/w Rahil Karia, Advocates
for Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and
learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai whereby the Learned Judge dismissed the Criminal Appeal
preferred by the Applicant and confirmed the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 5 th
Court, Dadar (at Sewree), Mumbai in C.C. No. 687/SS/2009. By the said
order, the Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and has been directed to
hand over vacant possession of Room No. 5, 2 nd floor, NSE Building,
Page 1 of 6
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
Koliwada,, Worli, Mumbai (hereinafter, “suit premises”) to the authorised
representative of Respondent No.2-Company.
3. It is prosecution's case that father of the Applicant was working
as “Driller” in Respondent No.2-Company, and during course of
employment, the suit premises was allotted to him as residential
accommodation. He retired from service on 28th February, 1979. However,
even after his retirement, he did not vacate the suit premises. Accordingly,
a notice was issued to him, calling upon him to vacate the suit premises. As
he failed to do so, the complaint was filed under Section 630 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and accordingly, impugned order came to be passed.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for Applicant that Applicant
is occupying the suit premises in the capacity as a tenant of Respondent
No.2-Company and not as a person wrongfully withholding the property of
the Company. The suit was filed in year 1980 by Respondent No.2-
Company in the Small Causes Court against the father of Applicant for
recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground that father of the
applicant was a licensee of the suit premises and was liable to hand over
the possession of the said suit premises to the respondent no.2. The said
suit was dismissed. The said fact was suppressed by Respondent No.2.
Learned counsel further submitted that earlier complaint was filed before
the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, second complaint was filed, which is
Page 2 of 6
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
not tenable. However, this fact has not been considered by the Learned
Courts below and requested to allow the Revision Application.
5. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the
suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is submitted that the earlier
complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution and was not decided on
merits. The father of the Applicant was an employee of Respondent No.2-
Company, and the suit premises was allotted to him as an employee
quarter. He was required to vacate the premises after his superannuation.
However, he pro-longed vacating the suit premises and even after his
death, the Applicant continued to remain in possession. Learned counsel
further submitted that the offence under Section 630 of the Companies
Act, 1956 is a continuing offence and that a legal heir of the deceased
employee can be prosecuted where the property of the Company continues
to be wrongfully withheld. The Courts below have passed well-reasoned
order. Hence, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the
application.
6. Learned APP adopted the submissions of learned counsel for
respondent no.2 and submitted that the Courts below have passed well-
reasoned order, no interference is required in it and requested to reject the
application.
7. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the impugned
Page 3 of 6
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
judgment and order and documents produced on record. Admittedly the
suit premises was given to father of the Applicant in the capacity as
employee of Respondent No.2. After superannuation, he did not vacate
the suit premises. Therefore, notice was given. The earlier civil
proceeding filed in year 1980 was dismissed for non-prosecution. The
complaint filed before the learned Magistrate was also dismissed for want
of prosecution.
8. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is occupying the suit premises in the capacity as a tenant of
Respondent No.2-Company. I do not find merit in this contention as record
shows that while allotment of the suit premises, the father of the Applicant
had executed Agreement dated 30th September, 1959 with Respondent
No.2-Company. The said Agreement was executed under the terms and
conditions governing allotment of the suit premises constructed by the
Company for its employees. Thus, the documents produced on record,
including the Agreement dated 30th September, 1959, show that the
premises was allotted to the father of the Applicant as an employee of
Respondent No.2-Company.
9. Further, the Applicant, in his cross-examination dated
06/03/2025, has stated that he has no documentary evidence to show that
there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between his father and
Page 4 of 6
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
Respondent No.2-Company. He has also stated that he has no documentary
evidence to show that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant
between himself and Respondent No.2-Company. He has further stated
that Respondent No.2-Company had not executed any Leave and Licence
Agreement either in his favour or in favour of his father. Moreover, the
receipt produced on record shows that the amount paid by the Applicant
was not in the nature of rent, but was towards compensation for use and
occupation of the suit premises.
10. The father of the Applicant, after his superannuation, was required
to vacate the premises. However, he failed to do so. After his death, the
Applicant continued to remain in possession of the premises. The Applicant
was admittedly not an employee of Respondent No.2-Company. Therefore,
in the absence of any document showing tenancy in favour of the
Applicant, his continued possession of the premises cannot be said to be in
the capacity as a tenant.
11. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
provisions of Companies Act would not be applicable to the applicant. In
my view, Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be invoked where
the property of the Company is wrongfully withheld. In the present case,
the suit premises was allotted to the father of the Applicant as employee
accommodation. After his superannuation, the premises was required to be
Page 5 of 6
9-REVN-79-2026 (CR) VD (1).doc-final.doc
Tikam
vacated. The same was not vacated and even after his death, the Applicant
continued to remain in possession. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
Courts below regarding wrongful withholding of the premises cannot be
said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.
12. As regards the contention regarding maintainability of the
subsequent complaint, the earlier complaint was dismissed for want of
prosecution and was not decided on merits. Therefore, the said dismissal
would not preclude Respondent No.2 from filing a subsequent complaint
when the alleged wrongful withholding of the premises continued. The
learned Sessions Judge has also considered the said aspect and has
recorded reasons for holding the subsequent complaint to be maintainable.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I do
not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application is rejected.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…