https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97862 In misfeasance proceedings arising in banking company liquidation, a liquidator's report is not itself an application; proceedings commence only when an application is filed in the prescribed form, so limitation runs from that later filing. The court held that older acts complained of fell outside the five-year limit under section 543(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. It further held that section 45-O(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 did not save misfeasance claims, while section 45-O(2) governed limitation for claims against directors and preserved only a longer but finite period. The repealed section 45-F could not be relied on. Older misfeasance claims were time-barred, but surviving contractual and recent misfeasance claims could proceed. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:25:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97862 In misfeasance proceedings arising in banking company liquidation, a liquidator's report is not itself an application; proceedings commence only when an application is filed in the prescribed form, so limitation runs from that later filing. The court held that older acts complained of fell outside the five-year limit under section 543(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. It further held that section 45-O(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 did not save misfeasance claims, while section 45-O(2) governed limitation for claims against directors and preserved only a longer but finite period. The repealed section 45-F could not be relied on. Older misfeasance claims were time-barred, but surviving contractual and recent misfeasance claims could proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 11 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97862