1971 (6) TMI 39 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of answers given by officers of Barclays Bank Ltd. to Board of Trade inspectors during an investigation into certain companies as evidence in an action against Barclays Bank Ltd.

Analysis:
The judgment by Brightman, J. addresses the admissibility of answers provided by officers of Barclays Bank Ltd. to Board of Trade inspectors during an investigation into specific companies as evidence in an action against Barclays Bank Ltd. The answers in question were given by Mr. Hockley and Mr. Cooper, officers of Barclays Bank Ltd., during two separate instances. The first set of answers, given by Mr. Cooper on July 18, 1960, were not provided under oath and are deemed inadmissible. However, the second set of answers given by Mr. Cooper on February 22, 1961, were provided under oath and are considered admissible.

Regarding the admissibility of the answers provided under oath by Mr. Cooper in transcript no. 18, the judgment refers to the Companies Act, 1948. Section 167(2) of the Act, read with sub-section (5), empowers Board of Trade inspectors to examine a company's bankers on oath. It is established that Mr. Cooper, being an officer of the company's bankers, attended the examination with the authority of Barclays Bank Ltd. Consequently, his answers are deemed admissible as evidence against the bank under section 50 of the Companies Act, 1967.

In contrast, the judgment distinguishes the admissibility of answers in transcript no. 3, which were not provided under oath. It is outlined that only answers given under oath in response to questions posed in exercise of the powers under section 167 are admissible under the Act of 1967. Answers obtained through informal questioning by Board of Trade inspectors, as in the case of transcript no. 3, are deemed inadmissible as they fall outside the scope of section 50 of the Act of 1967. The judgment concludes that while the answers in transcript no. 18 are admissible as evidence against Barclays Bank Ltd., the answers in transcript no. 3 are not admissible in the legal proceedings.