LexSATISH CHURAN LAW versus H. K. GANGULY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l .
-
11. I
(I) S.C.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
943
cases which would fall within the jurisdiction of
the High Court under s. 35(1) of the Act but it is not
to be narrowly interpreted nor to be so widely
interpreted as to convert the revision into an appeal
OD facts.
Appeal allow~.
SATISH CHURAN LAW
!),
H.K.GANGULY
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J.C. SHAH and J. R. MuDHOT.KAR, JJ.)
Company Law-Winding uir-Examinntion ~f •x-Direc-
tor-Applicatian of Liquidator accompanied by •igned •tate-
ment-Ex parte ordtr-Modijication or vacating of-Right to
insptct statement filed by Liquidator-Whether statement confidtn-
tial-(Jompaniea Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), •· 477-0ompani"
(Oourt) Rules, 1959, "· 243, 244 and 249.
A company was ordered by the High Court of Calcutta
to be wound up. The Official Liquidator submitted an appli-
cation accompanied by a signed statement for an order that
the appellant, an ex-director of the company, be examined
concerning the affairs of the company under s. 4 77 Companies
Act, 1956, and that he be ordered to produce certain records.
The application was granted ex-parte. The appellant applied
for an order vacating or modifying of the order and for supply-
ing copies of or facility for inspection of all documents including
the signed statement of the Liquidator. The Company Judge
rejected the application holding that the ex-parte order wa1
final and he had no power to review it and that the appellant
was not entitled to a copy of or to in•pect the signed statement
of the liquidator. On appeal Court held that the application
to modify or vacate the order was maintainable, but in the
circumstances of the case the Court held that the order was
"desirable and necessary" and that the appellant was not
entitled to an inspection of the signed statement of the
liquidator.
Held, that the ex-parte order was not final and it was
open to the Company Judge to modify or vacate. it on the
ground that it had been obtained without placing all the
requisite materials before the court or by ·mis-statement of
1961
Hari Shanlcat
v.
Rao Girdhari Uil
Chowdhury
Kapur J,
1961
Decemhtr 6
1961
Salish Churan Law
v.
H, K. Ganguly
944 SUPRE¥E COU~T REPORTS fl962] SUP}'..
facts or on other adeq11ate groun~s~ The primary test for
m1;tking the ordt"r was whe~her it' was just' and beneficial to
th'e 'bu::.ineSs of the company ; • the power conferred on the
court Was very ,vi de and the court had to gu'!:rd itself againat
being made an instr~ur1ent of vexation OT oppres·don. IIf-the
prc~rnt case none of the circumstances ju11tif)·ing interference
w~th the ex-parte order were made out.
The order was not
snltght f(ir a1iy coJlateral p1u-.pose, a purpose other than the
rfft:"ctive proi[rcss of the winding up in
th~ interest of the
comp:iny.
'fhe appellant was primafacie a person who was
likely to give inf'>rmation useful aboUt the ,affairs
of the
company jn winding up.
In re North Australian• >rerritory • Oomf,any, (1890) •n
Ch. D. In ••. Metrop>lit"n
B"n,~, (1880) 15 Ch. D. 139, In
rt. M•1vile Hose, lim:1&1., (1939) I Ch .. D. 32 and In re.
Gold Co'!'J>'my Ltd., (1879) 12 Cir. D. 77, referred to.
Held,
further, fliat the. appellant .had no right to
inspect the .•igned statzment made by the liq~idator -p_n w!'ic!>
the order of the ~ourJ proceeded. The statement of the L1qu1-
dator i:licl hot for~ part oftlie file of-\he p~ocee!lingsof liqu;da-
tion.
lt{ITH'Tely enabled the cour
1t to be satisfied that the
appellant should be'examined in the in\erest of the compony.
The rules permitted the making ot:_ such an orde't ex' parte.
The examinarion was confidential.·
"'
~
j
I'\_
In re Golif' Qompnny ltd.;\1B7?J l2 c.h. D. 77; r~ferrcd to.
'.
Crv1L APPELL4TE Ju~Ii=!DICTIO~,: Qivil Appet?-1
No.·521 ·of U.161.
Appeal by spe,cial,.Jea~e· froJ?. th11 -~tl.dginent
and order dated April 17,. 1!}6i of the Calcutta.
High Cour,t in.Appeal from Original Order .No. 13~
of 11160.
M .. G. Setalvad,
Attorney-General of J.ndia,
M. K .. Baner1i.~nd 8. N. Mt,tkherji,. fo-,; the ·appe1lt?-nt.
·J
8. Mukkerjee and P. K .. Bose, for tlie respon-
,.i
dent.
'
1961. December, 5.
The Judgment of the
Court ~·as. "deli V'ored b,Y
.,.
SHAH. J.-,-Ballygunge Real :Property ,and B'uild-
ing Society Ltd.~hcreina.fter called the Company-
was on J a.nuary 8, ,1938, orqe~11.d by ,th~ High Court
of J udieatu;e at Calcutta.,. to b!l wouµd up.
OP,
January 18, 196Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.