https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98804 A misfeasance petition under section 543 in Schedule XI, arising from proceedings under sections 397 and 398, was held maintainable even though the alleged misconduct pre-dated the Companies Act, 1956. The Court treated the provision as an ancillary statutory remedy with prospective operation that could reach antecedent facts discovered in those proceedings. It further held that the adapted provision carried no limitation bar, the residuary Limitation Act articles did not apply, and the petition was not to be treated as a suit. Objections of misjoinder, prematurity, want of permission, mala fides, and delay and laches were rejected. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:09:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98804 A misfeasance petition under section 543 in Schedule XI, arising from proceedings under sections 397 and 398, was held maintainable even though the alleged misconduct pre-dated the Companies Act, 1956. The Court treated the provision as an ancillary statutory remedy with prospective operation that could reach antecedent facts discovered in those proceedings. It further held that the adapted provision carried no limitation bar, the residuary Limitation Act articles did not apply, and the petition was not to be treated as a suit. Objections of misjoinder, prematurity, want of permission, mala fides, and delay and laches were rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98804