https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96766 A separate civil suit for compensation was held incompetent where the Companies Act winding-up and misfeasance machinery already governed claims against directors or officers, and the plaintiff had been dealt with in those proceedings. The court also found that no actionable misrepresentation was proved: the plaintiff did not establish reliance on any false statement in the prospectus or by the agent, and the evidence did not fix liability on the directors. The claim was further barred by limitation because it was filed long after the alleged 1930 misconduct, and fraud did not extend time absent concealment of the right within the limitation provision. The decree dismissing the suit was affirmed. en-us Thu, 12 May 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:26:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96766 A separate civil suit for compensation was held incompetent where the Companies Act winding-up and misfeasance machinery already governed claims against directors or officers, and the plaintiff had been dealt with in those proceedings. The court also found that no actionable misrepresentation was proved: the plaintiff did not establish reliance on any false statement in the prospectus or by the agent, and the evidence did not fix liability on the directors. The claim was further barred by limitation because it was filed long after the alleged 1930 misconduct, and fraud did not extend time absent concealment of the right within the limitation provision. The decree dismissing the suit was affirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 May 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96766