Satpal Singh v. Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

TALWANT SINGH, J NOVEMBER 18, 2022/pa

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order pronounced on 18.11.2022 + CRL.REV.P. 83/2022, CRL.M.(BAIL) 336/2022, 337/2022 & CRL.M.A. 5562/2022 SATPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Priya Gaur, Advocate. versus MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Firoz Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH Talwant Singh, J.: 1. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against judgement dated 17.12.2021 passed by learned ASJ in Criminal Appeal No.75/2020 wherein Judgement of conviction dated 18.01.2020 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2020 in Complaint Case No.2928/2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was affirmed. The learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused/petitioner under Section 452 r/w 435 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 18.01.2020, and thereafter, vide order on sentence dated 31.01.2020, learned Trial Court was pleased to sentence the accused/petitioner herein by imposing fine of Rs.2.00 lacs and in default, he was ordered to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. 1.1 Furthermore, the accused/petitioner herein was directed to vacate Flat No. F-3, Mother Dairy Staff Quarters, Mother Dairy, Patparganj, Delhi-92 and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the said flat to the complainant company on or before 01.04.2020 and in default, he was held liable for Simple Imprisonment of 6 months. 2. In brief facts, it is mentioned that the petitioner was a permanent employee of respondent/Mother Dairy since 1996. The flat in question was allotted to him in the year 2007. An eviction notice dated 05.12.2015 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner, ordering to vacate the flat. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents, being Civil Suit No.05/2016. 2.1 The case of the petitioner is that the flat in question is covered under the definition of Section 2 (3) (ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 as the land was allotted by DDA on perpetual lease. The power of the respondent/Mother Dairy to issue the eviction order was challenged. After hearing the interim application for stay, the learned Trial Court restrained the respondents from acting upon notice dated 05.12.2015 for getting the flat in question vacated during the pendency of the suit, without due process of law. 2.2 Respondent no.1 had filed a civil suit for possession and recovery of damages being suit No.3228/2016, based upon a letter/notice dated 05.12.2015. The petitioner filed written statement in the said suit. The respondents moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which was replied to by the present petitioner. On 27.01.2020, the order on this application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was passed, mentioning therein that the relationship of Licensor and Licensee was admitted by the present petitioner and the said license was revoked by the present respondents, so no trial was required and the respondents were held to be entitled to a decree for possession and the matter was further adjourned for leading evidence regarding quantum of damages. 2.3 Time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises by 30.11.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree for eviction passed on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and the said appeal is pending adjudication before this Court as RFA No.41/2021. Vide order dated 24.05.2021, the respondents were directed to not to execute the decree under challenge and to take a date before the Executing Court beyond the date fixed by this Court during the pendency of the said appeal. 2.4 It is further mentioned by the petitioner that his services were terminated w.e.f. 02.05.2016 by the respondents and the said termination has been challenged by the petitioner, which is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). A restrain order dated 05.07.2019 was passed by the CGIT, wherein the respondents