https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96914 Article 36 of the Limitation Act governs a suit for compensation against directors based on a misleading prospectus, because the claim is for malfeasance or misfeasance independent of contract and is not otherwise specially provided for. The making and issue of a false prospectus gives rise to a tort, and the statutory liability under section 100 of the Indian Companies Act does not convert the cause of action into a contractual one. The directors' liability arises from conduct preceding the subscription contract and remains separate from the subscriber-company contract. The suit is therefore time-barred. en-us Tue, 15 Aug 1944 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:12:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96914 Article 36 of the Limitation Act governs a suit for compensation against directors based on a misleading prospectus, because the claim is for malfeasance or misfeasance independent of contract and is not otherwise specially provided for. The making and issue of a false prospectus gives rise to a tort, and the statutory liability under section 100 of the Indian Companies Act does not convert the cause of action into a contractual one. The directors' liability arises from conduct preceding the subscription contract and remains separate from the subscriber-company contract. The suit is therefore time-barred. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 15 Aug 1944 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96914