https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98311 A director of a company in liquidation may be summoned for private examination under section 477 without the liquidator first showing the precise information expected from him, because an officer of the company is a proper subject of investigatory examination in aid of winding up. Pending misfeasance proceedings under section 543 do not bar that examination, since the two provisions serve different purposes, unless oppression, harassment, or a collateral purpose is shown. The mere possibility that answers may be incriminating also does not justify vacating the order; objections can be raised to specific questions when asked. The order for private examination was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:21:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98311 A director of a company in liquidation may be summoned for private examination under section 477 without the liquidator first showing the precise information expected from him, because an officer of the company is a proper subject of investigatory examination in aid of winding up. Pending misfeasance proceedings under section 543 do not bar that examination, since the two provisions serve different purposes, unless oppression, harassment, or a collateral purpose is shown. The mere possibility that answers may be incriminating also does not justify vacating the order; objections can be raised to specific questions when asked. The order for private examination was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98311