Insolvency Laws
In Dinaram Somani V.
Bhim Bahadur Singh' the Calcutta High Court held that
the court could, acting under this section, is-sue summons
against a person who could not be compelled to give evi-
dence under Order 16, Rule 19, Code of Civil Procedure,
because section 36 deals with discovery of property and
not with taking of testimony, and the jurisdiction confer-
red by the section is not, by reason of the proviso to section
90(1). Presidency Act, controlled by the provisions of the
Civil Procedure Code. See also Re Pushkar Na?-ayan
Brahinwai'-'. In Madras. it has been held that while no
witness could be compelled to give evidence if he satisfies
the requirements of Order 16. Rule 19, C.P.C., he could be
compelled to produce documents, as documents could be
produced by him through any other person.