High Court discretion in company-winding-up examinations permits oral questioning without prior interrogatories or unauthorised document production.

On a motion to discharge or vary a registrar's ex parte company-winding-up examination order, the High Court exercises its own discretion, giving weight to the liquidator's views but not confining itself to review of the registrar's decision. Section 268 of the Companies Act 1948 does not require written interrogatories before oral examination; the court may authorise direct examination where that course is best suited to obtaining relevant information without oppression or unfairness. A formal order also cannot add a production requirement for books and documents unless that relief was authorised, so any such term must be struck out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a motion to discharge or vary a registrar's order made under section 268 of the Companies Act, 1948, the judge exercises an independent discretion or is confined to reviewing the registrar's discretion; (ii) whether an order for examination under section 268 should ordinarily be postponed until written questions have first been submitted and answered; (iii) whether the formal order could require production of books and documents when the registrar's indorsement was silent on that aspect.

Issue (i): Whether, on a motion to discharge or vary a registrar's order made under section 268 of the Companies Act, 1948, the judge exercises an independent discretion or is confined to reviewing the registrar's discretion.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the historical practice of the Companies Court showed that the registrar functioned as the officer of the High Court performing work formerly done by the chief clerks. The proceeding to challenge the registrar's order was properly brought by motion to discharge or vary. Once the matter came before the judge, it remained within the High Court, and the judge was called upon to exercise the court's own jurisdiction. The liquidator's views were entitled to great weight, but the discretion on the motion was not limited to appellate grounds against the registrar's decision.

Conclusion: The judge held that the discretion was his own and that he was not confined to reviewing the registrar's exercise of discretion.

Issue (ii): Whether an order for examination under section 268 should ordinarily be postponed until written questions have first been submitted and answered.

Analysis: Section 268 authorised examination either by word of mouth or on written interrogatories, but it did not impose any rule that written questions must always precede oral examination. The court was required to choose the course best suited to obtaining relevant information without oppression, vexation, or unfairness. The facts showed a substantial liquidation and examinees likely to possess material information. In those circumstances, oral examination without prior interrogatories was considered the appropriate course.

Conclusion: The court held that prior written interrogatories were not a necessary precondition and that oral examination could proceed without them.

Issue (iii): Whether the formal order could require production of books and documents when the registrar's indorsement was silent on that aspect.

Analysis: The indorsement authorised leave to examine and the issue of summonses accordingly, but it did not expressly authorise production under section 268(3). The language used was apt for examination only and not for a separate requirement to produce documents. As the production requirement was neither sought nor supported, it could not stand in the formal order.

Conclusion: The court held that the production requirement had to be struck out.

Final Conclusion: The liquidator was entitled to proceed with the private examination, the judge's discretion was exercised in favour of that course, and the order was confined to examination without any compulsory prior written interrogatories or document-production requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: On a motion to discharge or vary an ex parte company-winding-up examination order, the judge exercises the High Court's own discretion and must decide whether the proposed examination is just and beneficial, giving weight to the liquidator's views but preventing oppressive use of the statutory process.

---