Misfeasance liability under company law requires specific pleadings and a prima facie link to the director's misconduct.

A misfeasance proceeding against a director under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires specific pleadings and supporting material identifying the alleged acts of commission or omission, the relevant tenure, and the manner in which loss was caused. The High Court noted that the application did not connect the respondent to the impugned transactions, that no transactions were shown during his period as co-opted director, and that the principal allegations related to an earlier period. In the absence of a prima facie case, the misfeasance application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the pleadings and materials placed, the respondent could be held liable under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for alleged misfeasance, breach of trust, or misapplication of company assets.

Analysis: Liability under section 543 requires a detailed statement of the specific acts of commission and omission attributed to the director, together with facts showing how the alleged misconduct occurred during the relevant tenure and how the loss was occasioned. The application did not contain sufficient particulars to connect the respondent with the alleged transactions. The material showed that the company had been before the BIFR, that no transactions took place during the period when the respondent was co-opted as a director, and that the principal allegations related to periods anterior to his tenure. In the absence of averments establishing a prima facie case, the application could not be sustained.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out against the respondent under section 543, and the misfeasance application was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application failed for want of specific pleadings and supporting material linking the respondent to any actionable misconduct during his period as director.

Ratio Decidendi: A misfeasance proceeding against a director cannot succeed unless the application pleads and substantiates specific acts of misconduct attributable to that director and makes out a prima facie case for liability.

---