TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an application for examination under section 195 could be made by a creditor and not only by the official liquidator; (ii) whether rule 197 absolutely excluded the creditor and his legal advisers from attending the examination; and (iii) whether the examination ought to have been confined to specified matters and the appellant allowed legal representation.
Issue (i): whether an application for examination under section 195 could be made by a creditor and not only by the official liquidator.
Analysis: Section 195 vested the power of examination in the court and did not confine the initiation of proceedings to the official liquidator. The rule requiring an application by the official liquidator was treated as regulating the ordinary course, but not as taking away the court's discretion where the liquidator declined to act. The court noted that the object of the provision was to aid the winding up and that the liquidator's inaction could not disable the court from acting on a creditor's application in a fit case.
Conclusion: The objection that the application was incompetent and without jurisdiction was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether rule 197 absolutely excluded the creditor and his legal advisers from attending the examination.
Analysis: Rule 197 was construed as stating who had a right to attend, not as forbidding the court from permitting others to be present. Since the creditor had been allowed to move the application and the liquidator was not taking the initiative, the court held that it could, in a proper case, allow the creditor to attend. The same reasoning supported allowing legal assistance where fairness required it, especially after the examination was confined within defined limits.
Conclusion: The rule did not bar the court from permitting the creditor's attendance, and the appellant could also be allowed his lawyers' presence for the limited purpose directed.
Issue (iii): whether the examination ought to have been confined to specified matters and the appellant allowed legal representation.
Analysis: The examination under section 195 was held to be a discovery process for the winding up and not an unrestricted inquiry. To prevent a fishing inquiry, the court directed that the examination be confined to identified headings connected with the company's mortgages, dealings, assets and related transactions. Once the scope was so limited, fairness required that the appellant be allowed legal assistance on the same footing as the creditor, though counsel would have no general right of address.
Conclusion: The examination was restricted to specified matters and the appellant was entitled to the presence of his lawyers as directed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed only to the extent of imposing safeguards on the examination and securing parity of legal assistance, while maintaining the order for examination under section 195.
Ratio Decidendi: A company court's power to order examination in winding up proceedings remains vested in the court itself, and the procedural rules governing the application, attendance, and conduct of that examination must be read as regulatory rather than exhaustive, so as not to defeat the court's discretion to prevent misuse while ensuring fair and limited discovery.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
