Misfeasance claims under company law need contemporaneous proof of misapplication or loss; balance-sheet figures alone are insufficient.

A misfeasance claim under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be supported by specific, contemporaneous evidence showing misapplication, breach of trust, or loss attributable to the directors. A claim based mainly on figures from an earlier balance sheet and an unproduced valuation report was insufficient, because the alleged shortfall was not shown to relate to the same assets and inventories, and the remaining allegations concerning loans, cash, investments, and debtors were not backed by material proving wrongful retention or loss. On the record, the company also appeared to owe the first respondent, and some deposits were linked to utility connections during the company's early incorporation period. The application was therefore not proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the misfeasance application under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was substantiated on the basis of the material produced.

Analysis: The claim was founded principally on figures taken from an earlier balance sheet and on an asserted valuation said to have been made by the secured creditor, but the valuation report itself was not produced. The alleged shortfall in asset value was therefore not shown to relate to the same assets and inventories reflected in the balance sheet. The remaining claims relating to loans and advances, cash and bank balances, investments and sundry debtors were also not established by specific, contemporaneous material showing misapplication, loss, or wrongful retention by the respondents. The materials on record instead indicated that the company owed the first respondent a sum and that certain deposits related to utility connections made in the early period of incorporation.

Conclusion: The application was not proved and was liable to be rejected against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: A misfeasance claim under Section 543(1) must be supported by specific and contemporaneous evidence showing misapplication, breach of trust, or loss attributable to the directors; a claim based on surmise or an earlier balance sheet without proof of the relevant valuation and particulars is insufficient.

---