https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98999 Misfeasance proceedings against banking-company directors were held within the special limitation scheme governing winding up, because time ran from the first appointment of the liquidator under the amended provision. The summary jurisdiction was held not to authorise coercive orders against the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased director, though a declaration of the deceased director's liability could still be made where he had been heard or represented. On the evidence of mismanagement, false accounts and deficient supervision, the directors were held personally liable for the losses, with the managing director bearing the primary responsibility and liability apportioned among the responsible directors. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98999 Misfeasance proceedings against banking-company directors were held within the special limitation scheme governing winding up, because time ran from the first appointment of the liquidator under the amended provision. The summary jurisdiction was held not to authorise coercive orders against the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased director, though a declaration of the deceased director's liability could still be made where he had been heard or represented. On the evidence of mismanagement, false accounts and deficient supervision, the directors were held personally liable for the losses, with the managing director bearing the primary responsibility and liability apportioned among the responsible directors. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 19 Jan 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98999