TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the misfeasance application was barred by limitation under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, or whether it could be treated as having been instituted by an earlier report. (ii) Whether section 45-O of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, or the repealed section 45-F of that Act extended or excluded time so as to save the application.
Issue (i): Whether the misfeasance application was barred by limitation under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, or whether it could be treated as having been instituted by an earlier report.
Analysis: A report by the liquidators was held not to be an application, because proceedings for misfeasance had to be initiated by an application in the prescribed manner. The proceeding therefore commenced only with the later application. Since the acts complained of predated the winding-up order and the first appointment of the liquidator, the application fell beyond the five-year limit prescribed by section 543(2).
Conclusion: The misfeasance claim was barred by limitation under section 543(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Issue (ii): Whether section 45-O of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, or the repealed section 45-F of that Act extended or excluded time so as to save the application.
Analysis: Section 45-O(1) was held inapplicable to misfeasance proceedings, because such proceedings arise only after the winding-up order and the exclusion of time from the date of presentation of the petition would otherwise nullify limitation altogether. Section 45-O(2) was treated as the governing provision for claims against directors other than those expressly exempted, and it preserved a longer but still finite limitation period. The earlier exclusion under section 45-F was not available because that provision had been repealed before the present application was filed. The contractual claims against directors were treated as not barred, while misfeasance claims survived only in respect of acts within twelve years before the application.
Conclusion: Section 45-O(2) governed limitation, section 45-O(1) did not save the misfeasance claim, and the repealed section 45-F could not be relied upon; only the non-barred contractual and recent misfeasance claims could proceed.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding was held to be time-barred as to older misfeasance claims, but the liquidator was permitted to proceed further on the surviving heads of claim within the applicable limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: In misfeasance proceedings by a banking company in liquidation, the limitation regime applicable to claims against directors is governed by section 45-O(2), not by section 45-O(1), and a repealed exclusionary provision cannot be invoked after its repeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
