Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a director against whom a decree had been passed in misfeasance proceedings could be arrested in execution under section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the footing that the decree was for money for which he was bound to account in a fiduciary capacity.
Analysis: A director, though not an express trustee, occupies a fiduciary position in relation to the company and its members. His duty to supervise and manage the company's affairs and to deal properly with property under his control makes him liable to account where loss is caused by breach of that duty. Misfeasance by a director, in this context, is treated as a breach of trust. The Court held that the decree itself could not be re-opened in execution, and the finding that the loss resulted from the appellant's failure to perform his duty brought the case within clause (c) of the proviso to section 51.
Conclusion: The order for arrest was validly made, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A director who, by breach of his fiduciary duties, becomes liable to make good loss to the company can be treated as a person bound in a fiduciary capacity to account for the decretal amount, thereby attracting arrest in execution under section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure.