9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal. 2. Court's power to summon a party to give evidence on oath. 3. Adequacy of reasons provided for the order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal: The official liquidator raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal is not maintainable as the order in question is an interlocutory order and does not finally decide any dispute. The appeal was purportedly brought under section 202 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, read with section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, section 45N of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and section 4 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961. The court noted that section 202 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, confers a right of appeal from any order or decision made in the winding up of a company. The court held that the machinery for appeals provided by the State legislature (section 4 of the Mysore High Court Act) can be used for appeals provided by the Companies Act. Therefore, the preliminary objection was overruled, and the appeal was deemed maintainable. 2. Court's Power to Summon a Party to Give Evidence on Oath: The appellants contended that the court has no power to summon a party to an action against his wish to give evidence on oath. They argued that section 235 of the Act provides for a summary mode of enforcing rights, which must otherwise be enforced by a regular suit, and that the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the trial of misfeasance proceedings. They further argued that under the Code, the court has no power to summon a party to the proceedings against his will to give evidence. The court, however, noted that the inherent power to summon and to question witnesses is recognized by common law and is ancillary to the power to decide. It was held that in proceedings like the winding up of a company, where the official liquidator initiates proceedings, and the directors and other officers of the company are the best persons to explain their conduct, the court may summon even a party against his will to give evidence on oath. Therefore, the first ground of objection failed. 3. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Order: The appellants argued that the order is arbitrary as it failed to note the objections urged and provide detailed reasons. The court observed that the learned judge had invited the counsel to place whatever circumstances they would like him to consider before making up his mind finally. The judge had briefly indicated the reasons for summoning the parties to give evidence and stated that further and fuller reasons would be given in the final order to avoid embarrassing the parties during the trial. The court found that the reasons given were adequate in the circumstances and noted that the appellants have a right of appeal against the final decision if it goes against them. Therefore, the second ground of objection was also dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and it was held that the court has the power to summon a party to give evidence on oath in misfeasance proceedings. The reasons provided by the learned judge for the order were deemed adequate, and the appellants' objections were overruled. There was no order as to costs.
|
