Crl.Rev. Petition No. 21/2011 Page 1 of 2 * 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 Crl.Rev. Petition No. 21/2011 Page 2 of 2 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