Section 300: Power to order examination of promoters, directors, etc

Companies Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013
Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 300

Section 300 of the Companies Act, 2013 confers wide inquisitorial jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to order the public or private examination of promoters, directors, and officers of a company ordered to be wound up, where the Company Liquidator submits a report alleging corporate fraud, misfeasance, or breach of trust in the promotion, formation, or management of the company.

  • Condition Precedent: Submission of Report Alleging Fraud: The jurisdictional threshold requires the Company Liquidator to submit a formal report under Section 281(3) or an independent further report stating the opinion that fraud has been committed by any person in the promotion or formation, or by any officer in relation to the company since its formation.
  • Compulsive Examination on Oath and Evidentiary Admissibility: The Tribunal directs the named person to attend and be examined on oath regarding the promotion, formation, conduct of business, or personal dealings; all notes of examination must be recorded in writing, read over, signed by the examinee, and are admissible in evidence against them in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.
  • Legal Representation, Cross-Examination, and Exculpation: The examinee is entitled to a copy of the liquidator's report and may be represented by a legal practitioner, chartered accountant, company secretary, or cost accountant; if the Tribunal concludes after examination that the examinee is exculpated from charges of fraud, it possesses statutory power to award costs against the estate.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Ex parte Barnes, [1896] AC 146 (HL): The House of Lords established the foundational doctrine that the court lacks jurisdiction to order a public examination without a definite report of the liquidator expressing the opinion that fraud has been committed by the individual named in the summons.
  • Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd. v. P.A. Tendolkar, (1973) 1 SCC 602: The Supreme Court ruled that directors cannot shelter behind passive ignorance or dereliction of fiduciary duties; where liquidator reports prima facie misfeasance or fraud, the court is duty-bound to summon and examine the directors under oath.
  • Fazal D. Allana v. Mangaldas M. Pakvasa, AIR 1953 Bom 223: The Bombay High Court held that public examination of delinquent officers is an inquisitorial proceeding designed for the protection of public commercial morality and creditors' interests, distinct from adversarial inter-party litigation.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In NCLT winding-up proceedings, counsel representing examined directors must inspect the liquidator's report immediately upon service. Object to any examination if the report fails to attribute specific fraudulent transactions to the client, citing Ex parte Barnes. If examination proceeds, request leave under Section 300(4) for advocate representation to cross-examine and clarify depositions, and if the client is cleared, file a formal application under Section 300(5) for complete exculpation and costs against the liquidator's estate.