Rajinwinder Singh Grewal, Satwant Singh, Ravinder Kaur and Joti Jain appeared in the High Court at Auckland on Thursday.

A director of the embattled Masala restaurant chain has claimed someone was impersonating him during legal proceedings.

The claims were made during contempt of court proceedings in the High Court at Auckland.

Lawyers for liquidators Damien Grant and others began the proceedings against Rajinwinder Singh Grewal, Satwant Singh, Ravinder Kaur and Joti Jain after accusing them of failing to hand over up to 200 boxes of documents.

Grewal and Jain were convicted last year and sentenced for exploitation charges relating to the underpayment of foreign employees working at Masala chains in Mission Bay, Takapuna and Bucklands Beach.

READ MORE:

* Masala Indian restaurant managers sentenced for exploiting staff

* Masala Indian restaurant chain assets frozen in High Court order

* Masala bosses in High Court after documents 'vanish'

Earlier this year the High Court issued a restraining order against Masala assets after police began investigating the chain.

Liquidators brought the four before the court in February to seek explanation as to the whereabouts of a bundle of documents thought to number 200 boxes.

Counsel for the liquidators, Alden Ho, said at the time that liquidators were frustrated at the conflicting explanations as to where the documents were.

At a contempt application hearing in the High Court at Auckland on Thursday, Ho asked Justice Paul Heath to make orders against three of the directors.

He also sought costs for the time and resources that had been dedicated to trying to get the documents.

However, he conceded further investigation was needed into Satwant Singh after Singh's lawyer argued that his client had been "impersonated" during earlier proceedings.

Justice Heath was told that now-retired lawyer Michael Tolhurst had filed affidavits on behalf of Singh in response to the contempt applications.

But Singh claimed he had never met Tolhurst and was unaware of the application until he read his name in the newspaper in association with the proceedings.

Counsel for Singh, Gurbrinder Aulakh, argued that his client had never been served with any documentation in relation to the application, that he was a silent director who had no participation in the running of the restaurants, and had never met Tolhurst or given him instructions in the matter.

"There's no way he could be holding the records of the company, he's been working full time as a machine operator," Aulakh said.

"He's never been to [Tolhurst's] office, he's never communicated with him or any lawyer. There does seem to be an issue ... it appears that somebody may have impersonated him."

Tolhurst was not in court for the hearing.

Justice Heath said the matter deserved further investigation and ordered Tolhurst be summoned to a later appearance along with Singh so they could both explain what transpired.

He doubted Tolhurst had filed documents without having received instructions from somebody first, Justice Heath said.

Applications in relation to Singh's co-directors continue.

Lawyers for the trio say they have complied with everything asked of them and opposed the applications.