Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 750 - HC - Companies LawPublic examination of six persons prayed for - to disclose the assets of a company in liquidation and such other relevant information as would be helpful in the liquidation of the company. - Held that:- The issue is no longer res integra. Decision n case of Satish Churn Law Vs. H.K.Ganguly [1961 (12) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] olds that the court has to decide the application filed before it without the involvement of the person whose public examination is prayed for. No doubt, if a person is summoned for being publicly examined he/she would have to be made known the subject matter and the issues on which the person would be examined. The person would also be entitled for the complaint filed against the person. The position therefore would be that the decision whether or not to publicly examine a person is a decision to be taken by the court with the assistance of only the Official Liquidator or the person who has moved the application. Needless to state that the Official Liquidator or the applicant person would have to prima facie satisfy the court with reference to objective facts that case is made out to publicly examine the person named. The said person cannot participate in said decision making process. Only if the court summons the person would the person have a right to know the material in respect of which the person is being examined so that the person can respond. Proceedings by their very nature are not adversarial and are intended at gathering relevant facts which would facilitate the assets of a company to be recovered so that the dues of the creditors can be paid in accordance with law. Accordingly we modify the impugned order and direct the learned Single Judge to decide the applications filed before the Company Judge seeking public examination of persons guided by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Satish Churn’s case (supra).
|