https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108612 The court rejected the application as the petitioner failed to provide specific allegations and concrete proof against individual directors. The court emphasized the need for detailed narration of specific acts of commission and omission, supported by evidence, in misfeasance proceedings. The court also noted that the application seemed to be filed merely to save limitation, without pursuing it effectively. Consequently, the court found no merit in the application and dismissed it with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:04:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108612 The court rejected the application as the petitioner failed to provide specific allegations and concrete proof against individual directors. The court emphasized the need for detailed narration of specific acts of commission and omission, supported by evidence, in misfeasance proceedings. The court also noted that the application seemed to be filed merely to save limitation, without pursuing it effectively. Consequently, the court found no merit in the application and dismissed it with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108612