https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98388 Section 169(4) of the Companies Act 1948 was construed narrowly: "other misconduct" was read ejusdem generis with fraud and misfeasance, so it did not extend to mere negligence or ordinary breach of duty. The alleged banking acts of honouring cheques and handling the company account were too remote to be conduct "in connection with the management of its affairs", and the claim was not a true recovery action for specific property misapplied or wrongfully retained. As the proceedings had been commenced without authority on that construction, the proper course was to adjourn the summons pending the winding-up petition, rather than finally terminate it. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:26:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98388 Section 169(4) of the Companies Act 1948 was construed narrowly: "other misconduct" was read ejusdem generis with fraud and misfeasance, so it did not extend to mere negligence or ordinary breach of duty. The alleged banking acts of honouring cheques and handling the company account were too remote to be conduct "in connection with the management of its affairs", and the claim was not a true recovery action for specific property misapplied or wrongfully retained. As the proceedings had been commenced without authority on that construction, the proper course was to adjourn the summons pending the winding-up petition, rather than finally terminate it. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 05 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98388