Corporate oppression proceedings need not permit cross-examination or oral evidence as of right where affidavits and documents suffice.

Proceedings under sections 397 and 398 before the Company Law Board are governed by natural justice and the Board's power to regulate its own procedure, but they do not attract the full rigour of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act as a matter of course. The matter may ordinarily be determined on the documentary record and affidavits already filed, and cross-examination or oral evidence is not available as a right. Where, as here, the request was made late after extensive pleadings and affidavits and the record was already sufficient to decide the dispute, the request for cross-examination and oral evidence was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings before the Company Law Board in a petition under sections 397 and 398, the petitioners were entitled as of right to cross-examine all deponents to the affidavits filed in opposition and to lead oral evidence, or whether the matter could be decided on the basis of the affidavits already on record.

Analysis: The Companies Act, 1956 expressly requires the Company Law Board to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and permits it to regulate its own procedure. The absence of a specific procedural rule in the regulations did not justify importing, as a matter of course, the full rigour of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act. The proceedings under sections 397 and 398 are ordinarily capable of being decided on the documentary record and the affidavits filed by the parties, and oral evidence or cross-examination is not required as a rule. On the facts, the application had been made at a late stage after extensive filing of pleadings and affidavits, and the record already contained substantial material to determine the disputes.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no right to insist on cross-examination of the respondents or on oral evidence, and the request was refused.

---