Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

"Wife Has Right to Use Marital Home, But Not Company Assets," Rules Calcutta HC

09 September 2024 1:38 PM

By: sayum


The Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, has dismissed a criminal revisional application seeking the quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. The petition was filed by Meeta Bansal, who had been accused of wrongfully retaining company property following a matrimonial dispute with her husband, Sunil Bansal, the Managing Director of Lexus Exports Private Limited. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, allowing the lower court to determine whether the petitioner had wrongfully withheld company property.

The case stemmed from a longstanding matrimonial dispute between Meeta Bansal and her husband, Sunil Bansal. Both were directors and shareholders of Lexus Exports Private Limited. The dispute escalated after Sunil Bansal allegedly deserted the petitioner in 2015, leading to a series of legal confrontations, including domestic violence complaints and police cases. Amid these disputes, Lexus Exports filed a criminal complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013, alleging that Meeta Bansal wrongfully retained company assets, including a Honda Jazz car and electronic items, at the marital residence, despite no longer being a company director.

The primary legal issue was whether the petitioner had wrongfully withheld company property, which falls under Section 452 of the Companies Act. This section allows punishment for officers or employees who wrongfully retain company property after their employment or directorship ends. The petitioner argued that since she was no longer a director and the property was used by her husband, the managing director, the proceedings were an abuse of process, and the property was not in her "conspicuous possession."

The court disagreed, emphasizing that although the items were purchased for the use of Sunil Bansal, they were still in the marital residence where Meeta Bansal continued to live. The court noted that she was residing there as Sunil Bansal's wife and thus had a legal right to use the residence and its furnishings.

The court highlighted that while Meeta Bansal was no longer a director of the company, her residence in the marital home, where the company assets were located, was legally valid under matrimonial law. "The petitioner has every right to use the residence of Mr. Bansal together with fitting and fixtures as a wife," the court noted, stating that her use of the property was not wrongful per se.

 

The court distinguished between the various company assets, noting that the Honda Jazz car, registered in the company’s name, was being used by the petitioner exclusively for personal purposes. Since she was no longer a director, she was not entitled to retain the vehicle. The court ruled that this issue must be addressed at trial.

The court found no grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 452, noting that the complaint raised valid legal issues that needed to be resolved through trial. "The question of whether the petitioner wrongfully withheld company property cannot be conclusively determined at this stage without a full-fledged trial," Justice Gupta observed. The court relied on various precedents, including the judgment in Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das, where it was held that summoning the accused based on prima facie evidence is permissible, with the trial court responsible for evaluating the merits of the case.

The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition underscores the importance of allowing the trial court to fully examine allegations of wrongful withholding of company property. By affirming the lower court's rejection of the discharge application, the judgment sets a precedent that matrimonial disputes should not be used to circumvent corporate legal obligations. The case will now proceed to trial, where the court will determine the merits of the claims under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Date of Decision: 06 September 2024]

Meeta Bansal v. The State of West Bengal & Another

Similar News