TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of Robinson, discharges document production order under Companies Act.</h1> <h3>Maville Hose Ltd., In re</h3> Maville Hose Ltd., In re - [1939] 9 COMP. CAS. 234 (CD) Issues:1. Interpretation of section 214 of the Companies Act, 1929 regarding the power of the Court to summon individuals for examination.2. Determination of whether the order requiring the production of documents by a director is valid and not oppressive.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Simonds, J. in the Chancery Division pertains to a case involving Maville Hose Co., Ltd., a company in voluntary liquidation. The Registrar made an order under section 214 of the Companies Act, 1929, against Geoffrey Robinson, a director of another company, to attend for examination regarding debentures held by his company. The order required Robinson to produce specific documents, which became a point of contention in the case.The main objection raised by Robinson was twofold. Firstly, he argued that the documents listed in the order were not in his custody or power. Secondly, he contended that the order was oppressive and should not have been made under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. The liquidator, on the other hand, argued that Robinson should attend before the Registrar and refuse to produce the documents if he deemed it necessary.Simonds, J. addressed the procedural aspect of the case first. He opined that a proposed examinee should not be left with the sole option of attending and refusing to produce documents, risking potential consequences for disobedience. The proper course, according to the judge, was for the examinee to seek discharge of the order if deemed improper, rather than risking non-compliance.Regarding the validity of the order under section 214(3), Simonds, J. acknowledged the discretion of the Court in directing the production of documents. However, he found that the order requiring a large number of documents to be brought before the Court was not justified in the specific circumstances of the case. The judge emphasized the importance of avoiding oppression in the exercise of the inquisitorial jurisdiction under section 214, especially when a hostile claim might be made against a third party.Ultimately, Simonds, J. ruled in favor of Robinson, discharging the part of the order that required the production of documents and directing the liquidator to pay Robinson's costs. The judge highlighted that this decision did not prejudge Robinson's right to refuse certain questions or the potential future production of documents based on his answers.In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the interpretation and application of section 214 of the Companies Act, 1929, emphasizing procedural fairness and the avoidance of oppression in the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
