Interrogatories in winding-up proceedings must be confined to relevant, necessary matters; broad discovery and oral evidence were curtailed.

Interrogatories in winding-up proceedings are confined by relevancy, propriety and fairness, and Order XI rules 6 and 7 must be read together: rule 6 addresses objections to particular questions, while rule 7 permits a broader challenge to the interrogatories as a whole. The article explains that winding-up matters are ordinarily decided on affidavit evidence, so expansive discovery into a company's business is not available as of right. Limited interrogatories may be permitted on specific matters where clarification is necessary, but oral evidence and summoning witnesses are generally unnecessary at that stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interrogatories in a winding-up proceeding may be allowed broadly, and how the scope of Order XI, rules 6 and 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interrelate. (ii) Whether only a limited set of interrogatories should be answered and whether oral evidence or summoning of witnesses should be permitted at that stage.

Issue (i): Whether interrogatories in a winding-up proceeding may be allowed broadly, and how the scope of Order XI, rules 6 and 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interrelate.

Analysis: Interrogatories are intended to ascertain the opposing case and to support the enquirer's own case, but their use is confined by relevancy, propriety, fairness, and the safeguards built into Order XI. Rule 6 is directed to objections to particular interrogatories, while rule 7 enables a broader attack on the foundation of the interrogatories as a whole. The two provisions overlap and must be read together, and in a winding-up petition the ordinary procedural powers of the Code are not available as of right in the same manner as in an ordinary suit. The proceeding is ordinarily decided on affidavit evidence, and expansive inquiry into the company's business was not regarded as the object of winding-up jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The interrogatories could not be upheld in full, and the company's general challenge to the bulk of them succeeded in part.

Issue (ii): Whether only a limited set of interrogatories should be answered and whether oral evidence or summoning of witnesses should be permitted at that stage.

Analysis: The record already contained substantial affidavit material, and only a few specified matters required further clarification. The Court held that answers to a limited number of interrogatories would suffice for justice and that a wider inquiry into the company's business was unwarranted in winding-up proceedings. Because oral evidence did not appear necessary at that stage, the application for summoning witnesses was refused. However, limited interrogatories on specified matters, including electricity dues, provident fund liabilities, certain financial transactions, tax demands, and auditors' reports, were directed to be answered by affidavit.

Conclusion: Limited interrogatories were allowed, the remainder were struck out, and the request to summon witnesses was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order resulted in partial allowance of the interlocutory applications, with restricted discovery permitted, the larger interrogatory demand curtailed, and oral evidence declined, while the main winding-up petition remained pending for final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In winding-up proceedings, interrogatories and oral evidence are not available as of right; they must be confined to what is relevant, necessary, and fair, and the court may restrict discovery to a limited number of specific matters where the affidavit record is otherwise sufficient.

---