<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (6) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99434</link>
    <description>Directors who remain associated with control and allow reckless, collusive or unexplained depletion of company funds may be liable for misfeasance and breach of trust, even if one person dominated management. The court treated admitted directorship, documentary evidence and the accountant&#039;s report as sufficient to establish culpable inaction and failure to safeguard assets, and rejected the defence of non-involvement. The proceeding did not abate on the death of one respondent because misfeasance liability was joint and several, and it was not time-barred. Compensation, interest and costs were awarded, and criminal prosecution was directed against specified directors where the facts showed deliberate wrongful depletion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:07:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (6) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99434</link>
      <description>Directors who remain associated with control and allow reckless, collusive or unexplained depletion of company funds may be liable for misfeasance and breach of trust, even if one person dominated management. The court treated admitted directorship, documentary evidence and the accountant&#039;s report as sufficient to establish culpable inaction and failure to safeguard assets, and rejected the defence of non-involvement. The proceeding did not abate on the death of one respondent because misfeasance liability was joint and several, and it was not time-barred. Compensation, interest and costs were awarded, and criminal prosecution was directed against specified directors where the facts showed deliberate wrongful depletion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>