1. Winding up proceedings — Application for examination of a former director and production of documents under Section 477, Indian Companies Act, 1956 — Challenge to ex parte order. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 387
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th December, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Satish Churn Law, Appellant
Versus
H. K. Ganguly, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 521 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (M/s. M. K. Banerji and S. N. Mukerji, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. S. Mukherjee and P. K. Bose, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.BANERJI, P.K.BOSH, S.MUKHERJEE, S.N.MUKHERJEE
M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.BANERJI, P.K.BOSH, S.MUKHERJEE, S.N.MUKHERJEE
Important Points
An ex parte order for examination under Section 477 of the Companies Act can be vacated if oppressive or vexatious. However, the liquidator's supporting statement is confidential, not part of the liquidation file, and the person summoned has no right to inspect it.
Subject
Company Law - Winding Up
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Section 477 - Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rules 243, 244, 249, 360 - Examination of officers or other persons - Ex parte order - Modification and Vacating - Confidentiality of Liquidator's statement - An order made ex parte for the examination of a person is not final and is open to being vacated or modified on grounds that it was obtained by mis-statement of facts, or is vexatious or oppressive, or on other adequate grounds. The court must ensure it does not become an instrument of vexation or oppression, as the power is inquisitorial and can work with severity against third persons. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Scope of Examination - A director of a company, whether past or present, is ordinarily in a position to give useful information about the affairs of the company during winding up. An order for examination is not regarded as oppressive or vexatious merely because the person ceased to be a director prior to the date of the winding up, provided the court is satisfied that the examination is in the interest of the company. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(C) Right to Inspect Liquidator's Statement - The statement signed by the official liquidator in support of an ex parte application for examination under Rule 243 is a confidential document and does not form part of the file of the proceedings of the liquidation. Consequently, the person summoned has no right to inspect the statement or be furnished with a copy thereof. Such proceedings are intended to be confidential to effectively collect evidence for the prosecution of the liquidation, and the issuance of such an order does not violate the rules of natural justice. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
An official liquidator applied ex parte for the examination of a former director of a company in liquidation under Section 477 of the Companies Act and for the production of certain books and papers. The person summoned applied to vacate or modify the order, contending it was oppressive and that he could not answer questions without access to the liquidator's report and the company's records. The High Court upheld the order for examination but modified it regarding the production of books belonging to other companies not party to the liquidation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order for examination was neither vexatious nor oppressive, as the person's former role as a director made him a likely source of information for the winding up. It further held that the liquidator's supporting statement is not part of the public liquidation file and is intended to remain confidential.
Issues: (1) Whether an ex parte order directing the examination of a person under Section 477 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is liable to be modified or vacated on the application of the person affected. (2) Whether the order in the present case was oppressive or vexatious. (3) Whether the person summoned is entitled to inspect the statement submitted by the official liquidator in support of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while ex parte orders under Section 477 can be vacated if they are oppressive or obtained by misrepresentation, the examination of a former director is generally justified in the interest of the company. Furthermore, the liquidator's supporting statement is a confidential document, distinct from the liquidation proceedings file, and thus not subject to inspection by the person summoned.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Scope of Examination - A director of a company, whether past or present, is ordinarily in a position to give useful information about the affairs of the company during winding up. An order for examination is not regarded as oppressive or vexatious merely because the person ceased to be a director prior to the date of the winding up, provided the court is satisfied that the examination is in the interest of the company. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
(C) Right to Inspect Liquidator's Statement - The statement signed by the official liquidator in support of an ex parte application for examination under Rule 243 is a confidential document and does not form part of the file of the proceedings of the liquidation. Consequently, the person summoned has no right to inspect the statement or be furnished with a copy thereof. Such proceedings are intended to be confidential to effectively collect evidence for the prosecution of the liquidation, and the issuance of such an order does not violate the rules of natural justice. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
An official liquidator applied ex parte for the examination of a former director of a company in liquidation under Section 477 of the Companies Act and for the production of certain books and papers. The person summoned applied to vacate or modify the order, contending it was oppressive and that he could not answer questions without access to the liquidator's report and the company's records. The High Court upheld the order for examination but modified it regarding the production of books belonging to other companies not party to the liquidation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order for examination was neither vexatious nor oppressive, as the person's former role as a director made him a likely source of information for the winding up. It further held that the liquidator's supporting statement is not part of the public liquidation file and is intended to remain confidential.
Issues: (1) Whether an ex parte order directing the examination of a person under Section 477 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, is liable to be modified or vacated on the application of the person affected. (2) Whether the order in the present case was oppressive or vexatious. (3) Whether the person summoned is entitled to inspect the statement submitted by the official liquidator in support of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while ex parte orders under Section 477 can be vacated if they are oppressive or obtained by misrepresentation, the examination of a former director is generally justified in the interest of the company. Furthermore, the liquidator's supporting statement is a confidential document, distinct from the liquidation proceedings file, and thus not subject to inspection by the person summoned.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an ex parte examination order is modifiable — Whether the order was oppressive — Whether the summoned person is entitled to inspect the liquidator's supporting statement. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Ex parte orders under Section 477 are not final and can be vacated if oppressive — Examination of directors is generally beneficial for winding up. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Ex parte orders for examination under Section 477 are modifiable if oppressive or vexatious; however, the liquidator's supporting statement remains confidential and non-inspectable. (Para 8 , 13 , 14 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 17 )
6. Can an ex parte order directing the examination of a person under Section 477 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, be modified or vacated?
Yes, such orders are not final. A summoned person may apply to vacate or modify the order on grounds that it was obtained by misstatement of facts, suppression of material facts, or is otherwise oppressive or vexatious. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Is a person summoned for examination under Section 477 entitled to inspect the statement submitted by the Official Liquidator in support of the application?
No. The proceedings are intended to be confidential. The statement is not made on oath and does not form part of the official file of liquidation proceedings, thus it is not open to inspection. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
8. What is the primary test for the Court to order the examination of a person under Section 477?
The primary test is whether the examination is just and beneficial to the business of the company. Directors, past or present, are generally considered capable of providing useful information to promote the winding-up process. (Para 8 , 12 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. : Ballygunge Real Property & Building Society Ltd.-hereinafter called the Company-was on January 8, 1958, ordered by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta to be wound up. On January 18, 1960, the Official Liquidator submitted an application accompanied by a signed statement for an order that the appellant be examined under S. 477 of the Indian Companies Act. 1956. This application was granted ex parte by Mr. Justice G. K. Mitter on January 18, 1960, and the appellant was served with the order to attend the Court on March 22, 1960, for the purpose of being examined concerning the affairs of the Company, and to bring with him and produce at the said time and place the following books and papers, mentioned in Schedule B to the order, viz.,
(a) Ballygunge Estate (Private) Ltd. - Cash Books, General Ledger, Journal, Minutes Books from 1939 to 1948, Property Register.
(b) Ballygunge Building Society Private Ltd. - Cash Books, General Ledger, Journal, Minute Books, Property Register.
(c) Ballygunge, Real Property & Building Society Ltd. (In Liquidation) - General Ledger for 1949,
and "all such other books, papers, deeds, writings and other documents in his custody or power in any way relating to affairs of the Company." This order was published in public newspapers. The solicitors of the appellant by letters dated February 29, 1960, and March 10, 1960 called upon the Official Liquidator to furnish them with copies of the petition and the report on the basis of which the order was trade. The Official Liquidator having informed the solicitors of the appellant that the latter were not entitled to a copy of the report of the official liquidator, the appellant applied by a judge s summons for an "order recalling, vacating, setting aside or modifying" the order dated January 18, 1960, and for a direction to the official liquidator requiring him to supply copies of the report of the official liquidator and of the other documents relating to the application, and alternatively for an order granting leave to inspect the court records and proceedings of the application and to take copies thereof. The appellant contended that the order made by Mr. Justice Mitter on January 18, 1960, was obtained by suppression of material facts and that, in any event, the order made without notice to the appellant was vexatious and oppressive and amounted to an abuse of the process of Court. He submitted that he was a Director of the Company between the years 1939 to 1953 and had attended meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company and without reference to the records of the meetings of the Board and particularly without reference to the Minute Books, it was not possible for him to recollect any details as to transactions which might have taken place in the Board s meetings. He stated that he was not concerned with the administration, management or the day to day working of the Company, except to the extent of taking part in the Board s meetings, that he never had in his custody the books referred to in the order and that the official liquidator had never asked for or enquired of him about any documents, that he was not aware of the matters on which information was required by the official liquidator and unless those matters were made known to him, it was not possible for him to answer questions or to give information required of him, that to enable him, to answer questions or supply information, it was necessary for him to know the nature of the enquiry and the charges and to inspect the records and documents of the Company and without the assistance of such records and documents his proposed examination would be highly oppressive and harsh and was likely to prove futile.
2. The official liquidator submitted that all the available papers in the books with the liquidator will be made available at the time of the examination of the appellant but he - the official liquidator -was not bound to give information in advance about the nature of the
