Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

Smith N O and others vs. Master of the High Court, Free State Division, Bloemfontein and Another - (08 Mar 2023)

Party in possession of the relevant information is best placed to interrogate a particular witness

Civil

The issue in present case is whether only the Master of the high Court, and no one else, may examine witnesses subpoenaed at an enquiry convened by the Master in terms of Section 417 of the Companies Act, 1973.

Sections 417 and 418 are not distinct but rather complementary provisions which must be read together. They provide for a dual method for holding the enquiry. As the source of the delegation, the Master cannot delegate a function or power she does not already possess. There can be no doubt that whenever a Section 417 enquiry is called for, the liquidators, the court or the Master will be strangers to some of the intricate operations and affairs of the company in liquidation. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the information may lie in the exclusive domain of a creditor or some other party with an interest in the matter. The party in possession of the relevant information is best placed to interrogate a particular witness.

All statutory provisions must be interpreted to avoid absurdity. This is subject to three interrelated riders, namely that: (a) statutory provisions should always be interpreted purposively; (b) the relevant statutory provision must be properly contextualised; and (c) all statutes must be construed consistently with the Constitution.

The case where the court or Master conducts an enquiry without a commissioner, as was the position in the present case, is indeed a rare one. In practice, the Master invariably appoints a commissioner in terms of Section 418 to conduct the enquiry, usually senior counsel or a retired Judge. But that does not detract from the fact that, on the proper construction of Section 417, the Master is entitled to preside over the enquiry in terms of Section 417 and allow those summoned to the enquiry to be interrogated by, or on behalf of, liquidators or creditors.

Tags : WITNESS   ENQUIRY   EXAMINATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved