9911796707
TMI Blog1938 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on a statement made by the liquidator, which is not revealed to the party against whom an order is sought, but is, of course, made in the utmost good faith by the liquidator of the company. The order is made against one Geoffrey Robinson, a director of a company called Croft Mill Twist Co., Ltd. It is plain on the face of the order, and I need not refer to the statement for this purpose, that the object of the liquidator in seeking to examine Geoffrey Robinson under this section is to obtain information and, if necessary, to test the validity of a debenture or debentures of the company held by the Croft Mill Twist Co., Ltd. In those circumstances, the Registrar has made an order by which Geoffrey Robinson, described as a director of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments showing or relating to the circumstances of the issue and giving by Maville Hose Co., Ltd., of the debentures and guarantee above mentioned" To that part of the order exception is taken by Geoffrey Robinson, and he moves this Court that the order which I have stated should be discharged or varied in so far only as it relates to the requisition to produce the documents which I have mentioned. The objection is based on two main grounds: first, that the documents mentioned in the schedule are not, within the meaning of the schedule, documents in the custody or power of Geoffrey Robinson; and secondly, that in any event, the order is oppressive and as such ought not to be made in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and risk committal or attachment if the Court finds it was a proper order which he ought to have obeyed. His proper course is to state, here and now, the validity of the order which he claims to have been improperly made ; therefore, on that part of the case I think that, the applicant is right in coming to the Court to seek to have the order discharged. Is he, then, right in claiming that this is an order which ought not, under section 214(3), to have been made? In my view, he is right in so claiming. I do not propose in this case to determine the question, which may well be of some difficulty, whether a director of a company, either in general or in any particular case, can be said to have in his custody or power documents which belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery. It appears to me that in the circumstances of this case the Order is oppressive, and it is very important in exercising a jurisdiction under section 214, which is in any case an inquisitorial jurisdiction, to be careful not to allow the section to be oppressive as between the company on the one hand and a third party on the other hand, against whom it is contemplated that hostile action may be taken. Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion in this particular case, having read the statement on which the order was made, I shall discharge that part of the order which requires Mr. Geoffrey Robinson to bring with him for his examination the reports and documents which are referred to in the schedule to the order. But, in saying so, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
