Private company depositions may be treated as confidential, while each defendant can obtain a copy of his own statement.

Depositions taken under Section 195 of the Indian Companies Act and obtained under Rule 174 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules were treated as private documents, not as material freely available for pleading adverse allegations such as conspiracy. Fairness also supported giving each examined defendant a copy of his own deposition, provided he undertook not to disclose it to co-defendants or their legal advisers. The approach preserved confidentiality while allowing an individual witness access to his own statement, in line with the course followed in comparable company proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether depositions taken under Section 195 of the Indian Companies Act and obtained under Rule 174 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules made under the Indian Companies Act were private documents. (ii) Whether each defendant was entitled to a copy of his own deposition subject to an undertaking that it would not be communicated to co-defendants or their legal advisers.

Issue (i): Whether depositions taken under Section 195 of the Indian Companies Act and obtained under Rule 174 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules made under the Indian Companies Act were private documents.

Analysis: The depositions recorded in the course of examination were treated as documents obtained by the Liquidator under the procedural rule governing such examination. On that footing, they were regarded as private documents and not as material that could be freely characterized in the petition as establishing conspiracy or other adverse facts.

Conclusion: The depositions were private documents.

Issue (ii): Whether each defendant was entitled to a copy of his own deposition subject to an undertaking that it would not be communicated to co-defendants or their legal advisers.

Analysis: Since the depositions belonged to the person examined, fairness justified giving each defendant a copy of his own statement, while protecting confidentiality by requiring an undertaking against disclosure to the other defendants or their advisers. The order was supported by the course adopted in analogous company proceedings.

Conclusion: Each defendant was entitled to a copy of his own deposition on the stated undertaking.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's attempt to treat the examinations as material for alleging conspiracy was not accepted, but the defendants succeeded in obtaining copies of their own depositions subject to confidentiality safeguards, with costs directed against the company.

---