Case Overview

The Commercial High Court of the Western Province, Colombo, issued a significant order in Case No. CHC 70/2016/CO regarding the winding-up proceedings of Expo Brand Packs (Pvt) Ltd., under Part XII of the Companies Act, No. 07 of 2007. This case illustrates essential aspects of corporate insolvency law, the role of liquidators, and the court’s authority in obtaining necessary information to ensure proper liquidation.

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Commercial Bank of Ceylon PLC
• Liquidator: G.J. David, SJMS Associates
• Directors of Expo Brand Packs (Pvt) Ltd.: Former management opposing oral examination
• Additional Creditor Supporting Liquidator: National Development Bank

Chronology of Proceedings

1. Winding-Up Application: The petitioner filed for the winding up of Expo Brand Packs (Pvt) Ltd., citing insolvency under the Companies Act.
2. Court Order and Liquidator Appointment: The court granted the winding-up application and appointed G.J. David as the liquidator. Subsequently, the liquidator filed several reports to the court.
3. Forensic Audit: Upon the liquidator’s request, a forensic audit was conducted to investigate the financial and operational aspects of the company.
4. Interrogatories Served: Following the audit, the liquidator sought court permission to serve interrogatories on the former directors. These interrogatories were answered, but the liquidator deemed the responses inadequate.
5. Application for Oral Examination: The liquidator applied to summon the directors for oral examination, citing evasive or insufficient answers to interrogatories. The directors opposed this motion.
6. Court’s Direction for Submissions: The court invited written submissions from all parties to address the legal question of whether oral examination is permissible after written interrogatories have been served and answered.

Legal Issues Examined

1. Section 310 of the Companies Act:
   • This section empowers the court to summon individuals capable of providing information concerning a company’s affairs during liquidation.
   • Subsection (2) specifies that individuals may be examined either orally or via written interrogatories.
2. Section 311 of the Companies Act:
   • Addresses the court’s authority to examine individuals if fraud is suspected in the company’s formation or operations.
3. Directors’ Argument:
   • Argued that the statutory language (“either orally or on written interrogatories”) implies exclusivity.
   • Claimed that post-interrogatory oral examinations are redundant and unsupported by law.
4. Liquidator’s Argument:
   • Asserted that Section 310(2) does not restrict the court’s authority to conduct oral examinations if written responses are inadequate.
   • Emphasized the need for complete transparency to fulfill liquidation objectives.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

1. Purpose of Interrogatories:
   • Referencing Kennedy vs. Dodson (1895), the court highlighted that interrogatories aim to obtain admissions of necessary facts.
   • However, interrogatories under Section 310(2) are not strictly limited by Civil Procedure Code principles.
2. Interpretation of Section 310(2):
   • The court ruled that the phrase “either orally or on written interrogatories” does not preclude oral examination if interrogatory responses are insufficient.
   • The legislature intended to prioritize obtaining complete information rather than impose procedural rigidity.
3. Evaluation of Directors’ Responses:
   • The court found the directors’ answers to be evasive and inadequate, warranting further clarification.
4. Order Issued:
   • The court directed the directors to appear for oral examination under Section 310(2) to provide necessary details related to the company’s affairs and assets.

Key Findings and Implications

1. Reinforcement of Liquidator’s Powers:
   • The ruling underscores the liquidator’s authority to demand comprehensive information and the court’s discretionary powers to enforce compliance.
2. Clarification of Legal Ambiguities:
   • The judgment clarifies that procedural options (oral or written) under Section 310(2) are not mutually exclusive but are tools to ensure transparency and accountability.
3. Accountability of Directors:
   • The order reiterates the obligation of directors to provide complete and truthful information during the liquidation process. Evasive behavior may result in additional judicial scrutiny.
4. Creditor Protections:
   • By permitting oral examination, the court safeguards creditor interests, ensuring that company assets and dealings are fully disclosed.

Conclusion

This order exemplifies the judiciary’s role in corporate insolvency matters, balancing procedural fairness with the need to uncover critical information. It reaffirms that liquidation is a fact-finding process aimed at equitably addressing the claims of creditors while holding company officials accountable. The decision sets a precedent for interpreting the interplay between written and oral examinations under the Companies Act, offering clarity for future cases.

Read Full Judgement