NagpurTrade.com

	Maps
	Airlines
	Railway
	Hotels
	Places to Visit

	Dictionary
	STD / ISD
	Exporters & Importers
	Horoscope
	Distance
	Baby Names
	Translator
	Entertainment

	Worlds News Paper
	Indian Universities
	Foreign Universities`
	Govt. Sites
	Logitude - Latitude

	Statastical Data
	Clients List
	Reference List

Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides for penalty for wrongfully withholding the property of a Company. The said section stipulates that any officer or employee of a Company wrongfully obtaining possession of any property of a Company or after having obtained possession wrongfully, withholds it or applies it for purposes not meant to be applied, shall be punishable with a fine, which may extend to Rs.1,000/-.

Once a complaint is filed under section 630 of the Act, the Court trying such offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund any such property wrongfully obtained or withheld or knowingly misapplied. If the order of the Court is not obeyed, the penalty prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

Therefore, Section 630 creates two distinct offences.
a) Wrongfully withholding a Company's property, which is punishable only with fine; and
b) Failure to surrender the property inspite of a Court order to do so, which is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to two years.

Section 630 applies to both movable and immovable property of a Company. Further, the term "officer or employee' applies not only to existing officers or employees but also to the past officers or employees.

Where there is a dispute regarding the title of the property, which is civil in nature, various High Courts have held that the Magistrate should not venture to determine the same in exercise of their jurisdiction under section 630 of the Companies Act.

One of the most frequent instance where Section 630 of the Act is set into motion by the company is against an employee, who had been given the Company's residential accommodation, and who, after his dismissal or his retirement from service, withholds possession of such accommodation. The Madras High Court has further held that Section 630 can be attracted against a dismissed employee even when such employee has challenged his dismissal before the competent Industrial Court.

As per the said section, where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Court of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court (In India), the said decree may be executed in India as if it has been passed by the District Court. itself. "Superior Courts" with reference to foreign countries means such courts as are specified in the notification. Clause (2) of Section 44-A mandates that a certificate issued by the superior court of the reciprocating territory is to be filed stating the extent to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted.

The District Court before which the decree is sought to be executed is empowered to refuse execution of any such decree if any of the following are established:

a)	Where the foreign judgment has not been passed by a court of Competent jurisdiction.
	As per Section 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts (in India) shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on record. However, such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. The competence of the foreign Court has to be determined in accordance with the principles of International Law and not merely in accordance with the law of the country in which the foreign Court is situated.

b)	Where the foreign judgment has not been given on the merits of the case. Thus, a
	judgment given in a case in which the defendant put in no appearance, no evidence is called or considered, and in which the judgment is given by default by way of summary procedure is not a judgment on the merits of the case.

c)	Where the foreign judgment is based on an incorrect view of international law.

d)	Where the proceedings are opposed to the principles of natural justice. For example, a
	judgment obtained without notice of the suit to the defendant or without giving him a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case is contrary to natural justice.

e)	Where the judgment is obtained by fraud. The fraud invalidating a foreign judgment
	may be either fraud on the part of the party in whose favour the judgment is given or fraud on the part of the Court pronouncing the judgment.

f)	Where the foreign judgment sustains a claim founded on a breach of any Indian law.
	Therefore, where a decree for divorce was given in Uganda on a petition by the husband against his wife who was a resident of Goa where the marriage had been performed, and according to the law in Goa, the marriage was indissoluble, it was held that the decree of divorce could not be confirmed by the Court in Goa.