Misfeasance claim against ex-directors failed where balance-sheet entries alone did not prove wrongful conduct or breach of duty.

Official Liquidator's claim for recovery under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 failed because misfeasance, misconduct, or breach of duty by the ex-directors was not proved. The analysis noted that the claim depended mainly on balance-sheet entries, but no independent material established specific wrongdoing by each respondent. It was also relevant that the company's assets had been taken over by KSIIDC under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, so mere non-recovery of dues from debtors did not by itself show wrongful conduct or loss caused to the company. The issue was therefore decided against the Official Liquidator and in favour of the respondents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Official Liquidator proved misfeasance or misconduct on the part of the ex-directors so as to recover the claimed sum under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The claim rested substantially on entries in the balance-sheet and no independent material was produced to show that the respondents had committed misfeasance, misconduct, or breach of duty. The evidence did not establish any specific allegation against each respondent, and the record showed that the company's assets had been taken over by KSIIDC under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In that situation, the non-recovery of dues from debtors, without more, did not by itself prove wrongful conduct or loss caused to the company.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Official Liquidator and in favour of the respondents; the application for recovery under section 543 failed.

---