Completed ex parte winding-up examination order cannot be revisited by the same court; confidential liquidator materials remain inaccessible.

A completed ex parte order directing examination in winding-up proceedings under section 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be recalled, vacated, set aside or modified by the same court, because a completed order is not ordinarily re-opened except through appeal or recognised exceptions. The persons summoned were also held not entitled to inspect the liquidation file or the official liquidator's supporting statement, as rule 243 contemplated a confidential ex parte process and the statement was not treated as material open to inspection by the person to be examined. The applications therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a completed ex parte order directing examination under section 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be recalled, vacated, set aside or modified by the same court; (ii) Whether the persons summoned were entitled to inspect the liquidation file and the official liquidator's statement accompanying the ex parte summons.

Issue (i): Whether a completed ex parte order directing examination under section 477 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be recalled, vacated, set aside or modified by the same court.

Analysis: The order had been drawn up and completed, and the settled rule was that, save by appeal and subject to recognised exceptions, a court does not have power to re-hear, review, alter or vary its completed order. The summons for examination under section 477 was issued pursuant to the special procedure under rule 243(1) and rule 243(2) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which permitted the official liquidator to move ex parte. The persons summoned were not parties to the application and the order did not determine any charge or complaint against them. The challenge to rule 243(1) on the ground of article 14 was not decided, as it was treated as a matter for appeal.

Conclusion: The completed order could not be recalled, vacated, set aside or modified by the same court.

Issue (ii): Whether the persons summoned were entitled to inspect the liquidation file and the official liquidator's statement accompanying the ex parte summons.

Analysis: The procedure under rule 243 was intended to preserve the secrecy of preliminary examination in winding-up proceedings, and the liquidator's statement was not treated as part of the liquidation proceedings open to inspection under rule 360(1). The statement was a confidential basis for the court's consideration and not legal evidence on the record for inspection by the person summoned. Rule 248 protected private deposition notes, and the structure of rule 243 showed that the legislature intended a confidential ex parte process so that the person to be examined should not obtain information enabling defeat of the proceeding.

Conclusion: The persons summoned were not entitled to inspection of the liquidation file or the liquidator's statement.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed in their entirety, as the court held that it had no power to vary the completed order and that no right of inspection of the confidential material was available to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed order cannot be reviewed or varied by the same court except as permitted by law, and where the Companies (Court) Rules prescribe a confidential ex parte procedure for examination in winding up, the statement supporting the liquidator's summons is not a to inspection by the person summoned.

---