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.
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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2012 (6) TMI 103 - 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

        Misfeasance liability requires specific pleadings, while unexplained employee welfare dues can support an inference of misappropriation. Misfeasance liability against directors requires specific pleadings and proof of the particular acts or omissions causing loss; general allegations or a ...
                        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.

                            Misfeasance liability requires specific pleadings, while unexplained employee welfare dues can support an inference of misappropriation.

                            Misfeasance liability against directors requires specific pleadings and proof of the particular acts or omissions causing loss; general allegations or a mere repetition of the auditor's report are insufficient. A former non-executive director was not fastened with liability where no material showed his participation in misappropriation or misapplication of company assets. The broader claims against the remaining directors also failed for want of particulars, including the sales tax head. Liability was sustained only for unexplained provident fund and allied employee dues collected by the company, because such monies were not available for company use and non-remittance justified an inference of misappropriation.




                            Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings for misfeasance could be sustained against a former non-executive director in the absence of material showing his participation in the alleged misappropriation or misapplication of company assets. (ii) Whether the claims against the remaining applicant-directors could succeed without specific particulars of the alleged wrongdoing, and whether any part of the claim for misappropriation of provident fund dues was maintainable.

                            Issue (i): Whether the proceedings for misfeasance could be sustained against a former non-executive director in the absence of material showing his participation in the alleged misappropriation or misapplication of company assets.

                            Analysis: The claim against the former non-executive director rested on general allegations without any specific act connecting him with the alleged misappropriation. The record showed that he was appointed for liaison and settlement negotiations, had resigned long before winding up, and the auditor's report did not attribute any distinct act of misappropriation or misapplication to him. In misfeasance proceedings, liability must be founded on material showing participation, neglect, or such close association with the management as would justify responsibility.

                            Conclusion: The proceedings against the former non-executive director were not sustainable and were dismissed.

                            Issue (ii): Whether the claims against the remaining applicant-directors could succeed without specific particulars of the alleged wrongdoing, and whether any part of the claim for misappropriation of provident fund dues was maintainable.

                            Analysis: Misfeasance allegations must contain detailed particulars of the specific acts or omissions, the loss caused, and the persons responsible. The points of claim were substantially a reproduction of the auditor's report and did not identify with precision how the alleged misappropriation occurred or who was responsible. The claim relating to sales tax failed because the deferment circular displaced the assumption of wrongful retention and the liquidator did not establish the necessary particulars. However, the sum collected towards provident fund and allied employee dues stood on a different footing because such monies were not available for the company's use and no explanation was offered for their non-remittance. A presumption of misappropriation therefore arose in respect of that amount.

                            Conclusion: The general claims for misappropriation failed, but liability was sustained for the provident fund and allied employee dues, with directions for payment against the concerned applicant-directors.

                            Final Conclusion: The misfeasance proceedings succeeded only in part: the former non-executive director was absolved, most heads of claim failed for want of particulars, and liability was upheld only for the unexplained provident fund and related employee dues.

                            Ratio Decidendi: In misfeasance proceedings, liability cannot be imposed on directors without specific pleadings and proof of the particular acts or omissions causing loss, but unexplained retention of employee welfare dues collected by the company may justify an inference of misappropriation and consequent liability.


                            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