Interrogatories in oppression and mismanagement petitions may be allowed when they seek material facts and narrow the controversy.

Interrogatories in a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement may be permitted where they are directed to material facts and help narrow the controversy. The Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the relevant Company Law Board powers contemplated discovery, inspection, and calls for further information when necessary for effective adjudication. Interrogatories linked to allegations about transfer of business, sale of assets, purchase of alternate land, and diversion of funds were treated as directly relevant. The refusal based on delay, lack of bona fides, or a fishing and roving enquiry was not justified on the facts stated, and the interrogatories were described as neither unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive, nor scandalous.

---

---

Issues: Whether interrogatories sought in a company petition alleging oppression and mismanagement could be permitted, and whether the refusal of such interrogatories on the grounds of delay, lack of bona fides, or fishing and roving enquiry was justified.

Analysis: The procedure under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and the powers conferred upon the Company Law Board under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 permitted discovery, inspection, and call for further information where necessary for adjudicating the petition. Interrogatories are intended to secure material facts, obtain admissions, and narrow the controversy, and are not to be rejected merely because they may aid one party's case. The interrogatories pressed were found to be directly connected with the allegations in the company petition, particularly the transfer of business, sale of assets, purchase of alternate land, and alleged diversion of funds. The record also showed that the application was not barred by any strict limitation and that the delay attributed by the earlier forum was not material in the circumstances. The interrogatories were neither unreasonable nor vexatious nor oppressive nor scandalous.

Conclusion: The interrogatories were held to be maintainable and liable to be answered, and the rejection of the application was set aside in effect.

---