Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1998 (3) TMI 578 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Directors found liable for misfeasance & breach of duty, ordered to pay Rs. 3,10,000 + 12% interest. The court held that the respondents were liable for misfeasance and breach of duty, causing a loss to the company. They were directed to pay Rs. 3,10,000 ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Directors found liable for misfeasance & breach of duty, ordered to pay Rs. 3,10,000 + 12% interest.

                          The court held that the respondents were liable for misfeasance and breach of duty, causing a loss to the company. They were directed to pay Rs. 3,10,000 with 12% interest from the petition's filing until realization. The court found the petition timely filed and valid without the voluntary liquidator's joinder.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Entitlement of the petitioner to receive a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 from the respondents.
                          2. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest, and if so, at what rate and on what amount.
                          3. Whether the petition is barred by time.
                          4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of Gopal Krishan Monga, the voluntary liquidator.
                          5. Relief.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Entitlement of the petitioner to receive a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 from the respondents
                          The court examined whether the petitioner, the official liquidator, was entitled to recover Rs. 3,10,000 from the ex-directors of the company. The official liquidator proved that the original pronotes, which were the basis for the claim, were handed over by the respondents to the voluntary liquidator and then to the official liquidator. The respondents failed to recover the debts within the limitation period, leading to a loss for the company. The court found that the respondents acted negligently and irresponsibly, causing a definite loss to the company. Thus, the court held that the respondents were liable to restore the amount to the company.

                          Issue 2: Entitlement of the petitioner to interest, and if so, at what rate and on what amount
                          The petitioner claimed interest on the amount payable to the company. Some pronotes mentioned an interest rate of 18% per annum, but no evidence was provided to show that the company was entitled to the same rate on all pronotes. The court decided that a nominal rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition's institution until realization would be just. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,10,000.

                          Issue 3: Whether the petition is barred by time
                          The respondents argued that the petition was barred by time, as it was filed on November 25, 1992, while the company passed a resolution for voluntary winding up on March 24, 1980. The court examined the provisions of section 543(2) of the Companies Act, which allows an application to be made within five years from the date of the winding-up order or the first appointment of the liquidator, or the date of the misapplication, misfeasance, or breach of trust, whichever is longer. The court found that the winding-up order was passed on September 8, 1988, and the petition was filed within the five-year limitation period. Thus, the court held that the petition was not barred by time.

                          Issue 4: Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of Gopal Krishan Monga, the voluntary liquidator
                          The respondents contended that the petition was bad for non-joinder of Gopal Krishan Monga, the voluntary liquidator. However, the court noted that Mr. Monga had already died during the pendency of the petition, and his liability was not relevant to the respondents' liability. The court held that Mr. Monga was not a necessary party to the petition and that the petition was maintainable without his joinder.

                          Relief
                          The court concluded that the respondents were liable for the misfeasance and breach of duty, which resulted in a loss to the company. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 with 12% interest from the date of the petition's institution until realization. The petition was accordingly allowed.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found