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: Whether an order made in misfeasance proceedings under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be executed by appointing a receiver against the estate of a deceased director in the hands of his legal representatives.
Analysis: Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956 makes orders under the Act executable in the same manner as a decree, and the ordinary modes of execution under section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are therefore available. The Supreme Court decision relied on dealt with the continuance of misfeasance proceedings and the inability to pass compulsive orders directly against heirs or legal representatives within the misfeasance jurisdiction itself. It did not decide that an order already made under section 543 cannot be proceeded with in execution against the estate of the deceased director in the hands of the legal representatives. The liability of the deceased director could be declared, and other lawful remedies against the estate remained open.
Conclusion: The objection to execution against the estate in the hands of the legal representatives was rejected, and the appointment of the receiver was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the execution of the misfeasance order through ordinary civil process against the estate of the deceased director was not barred.
Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 may be enforced as a decree, and the statutory bar on compulsive orders against heirs in misfeasance proceedings does not prevent execution against the deceased director's estate in the hands of legal representatives.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
