https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97283 Public examination of a company officer was not displaced by the pendency of misfeasance proceedings. The court held that earlier English authorities did not control because they concerned different factual settings, including examination of third parties and situations where discovery had already been obtained or refused in pending litigation. Repeated applications by the liquidators supported the order, and the delay arose from objections raised on behalf of the appellant. The existence of misfeasance proceedings did not give the appellant a right to avoid examination, and the later posting of those proceedings did not justify interference with the order. The direction for public examination was therefore maintained. en-us Mon, 12 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:46:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97283 Public examination of a company officer was not displaced by the pendency of misfeasance proceedings. The court held that earlier English authorities did not control because they concerned different factual settings, including examination of third parties and situations where discovery had already been obtained or refused in pending litigation. Repeated applications by the liquidators supported the order, and the delay arose from objections raised on behalf of the appellant. The existence of misfeasance proceedings did not give the appellant a right to avoid examination, and the later posting of those proceedings did not justify interference with the order. The direction for public examination was therefore maintained. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Jul 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97283