Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Court dismisses Official Liquidator's claim for misfeasance against ex-directors under Companies Act, 1956</h1> <h3>Official Liquidator Versus V. Selvaraj</h3> The court dismissed the Official Liquidator's application, finding no substantial evidence of misfeasance or breach of trust by the ex-directors. The ... Winding up - application to make the respondents who are the ex-directors of the company under liquidation liable for misfeasance under sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 Held that:- It is clear that when an application under sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act is made relating to the allegation of fraud or breach of trust or misappropriation, to prove such allegation which is being criminal in nature, it is necessary that there should be mens rea aspect on the part of the ex-director either in committing fraud or causing loss to the company under liquidation. Such conduct of fraud or breach of trust must be specifically pleaded and proved and in the absence of such specific pleading and proof, on the facts of the present case, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Official Liquidator that there has been deliberate conduct of fraud or breach of trust on the part of the ex-directors of the company under liquidation. Thus no substance in the application filed by the Official Liquidator for taking any further action Against the respondents, viz., ex-directors of the company under liquidation for misfeasance under sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act and, therefore, the application stands dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Liability of ex-directors for misfeasance under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Joint and several liability to pay compensation for the loss caused to the company.3. Validity of claims regarding trade debtors, loans and advances, and unsecured creditors.4. Requirement of specific instances or dishonest conduct to establish misfeasance.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Liability of ex-directors for misfeasance under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956:The application by the Official Liquidator sought to hold the respondents, who are ex-directors, liable for misfeasance under Sections 542 and 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court examined whether the ex-directors had misapplied company funds, committed misfeasance, or breached trust. The judgment emphasized that to constitute misfeasance, there must be an intentional act or deliberate conduct detrimental to the company's interests. The court found that there were no specific instances or dishonest acts attributed to the ex-directors, thus failing to meet the criteria under Section 543(1).2. Joint and several liability to pay compensation for the loss caused to the company:The Official Liquidator sought to make the ex-directors jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 27,85,940 as compensation for the loss caused to the company. However, the court noted that the misfeasance report did not provide specific evidence or detailed instances of misconduct by the ex-directors. The court reiterated that general allegations without pinpointing specific acts of dishonesty or breach of trust are insufficient to establish liability under Sections 542 and 543.3. Validity of claims regarding trade debtors, loans and advances, and unsecured creditors:- Trade Debtors: The court noted that the ex-directors had taken steps to recover amounts due from trade debtors but were unsuccessful due to incorrect addresses. There was no evidence of intentional or deliberate conduct to let the debts lapse.- Loans and Advances: The ex-directors contended that despite efforts, they could not recover the amounts due. The court found no intentional act or deliberate conduct on their part.- Unsecured Creditors: The claim of Rs. 19,89,038 was contested by the ex-directors, who argued that these were remuneration amounts, not loans. The Official Liquidator conceded that there were no unsecured creditors, thus abandoning this claim.4. Requirement of specific instances or dishonest conduct to establish misfeasance:The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations and evidence of dishonest conduct to establish misfeasance. Citing precedents, the judgment highlighted that general and vague allegations are insufficient. The court referred to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Official Liquidator, Milan Chit Fund & Finance (P.) Ltd. v. Joginder Singh Kohli and other relevant cases, which underscored the need for detailed narration of specific acts of misconduct to prove misfeasance.Conclusion:The court dismissed the application by the Official Liquidator, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of misfeasance or breach of trust by the ex-directors. The judgment underscored the importance of specific and detailed allegations to hold directors liable under Sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found