https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96749 Directors were held liable only where their conduct amounted to wilful neglect or conscious, reckless breach of duty under the misfeasance and relief provisions. For misappropriated employee security deposits handled by the chairman and promoter, liability was not established because there was no material showing that the directors had grounds to suspect dishonesty or knowingly permitted the breach. By contrast, liability was sustained for allowing the company to commence and continue business without compliance with mandatory statutory commencement conditions and without the required paid-up capital, because the directors knew of the false declaration and the non-compliance. Relief from liability was refused since the conduct was not honest and reasonable. en-us Thu, 12 Aug 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:21:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96749 Directors were held liable only where their conduct amounted to wilful neglect or conscious, reckless breach of duty under the misfeasance and relief provisions. For misappropriated employee security deposits handled by the chairman and promoter, liability was not established because there was no material showing that the directors had grounds to suspect dishonesty or knowingly permitted the breach. By contrast, liability was sustained for allowing the company to commence and continue business without compliance with mandatory statutory commencement conditions and without the required paid-up capital, because the directors knew of the false declaration and the non-compliance. Relief from liability was refused since the conduct was not honest and reasonable. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Aug 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96749