https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96812 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. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:51:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96812 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 Apr 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96812