Private company investigations may include a shorthand writer where reasonably necessary; refusal to answer on that basis is unjustified.

An investigation under section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929 was private, but that did not exclude persons reasonably necessary for the inspector's proper performance of duty. A shorthand writer engaged only to record the examination for use in preparing the inspector's report was treated as reasonably necessary and not as a public presence. Refusal to answer questions solely because the shorthand writer was present was unjustified and triggered the consequences contemplated by section 135(5), with liability to pay costs and no further punishment.

---

---

Issues: Whether an inspector conducting an investigation under section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929, may permit a shorthand writer to be present during the examination, and whether refusal to answer questions because of that presence is justified.

Analysis: The examination under section 135 was private, but that did not exclude persons whose presence was reasonably necessary for the proper performance of the inspector's duty. A shorthand writer engaged only to record the proceedings for the inspector's use in preparing the report was held to be reasonably necessary and not a public presence. The respondent's refusal to answer questions solely because the shorthand writer was present was therefore unjustified and attracted the consequences contemplated by section 135(5).

Conclusion: The presence of the shorthand writer was permitted, the refusal to answer was wrongful, and the respondent was liable to pay the costs, without further punishment.

---