https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111332 Misfeasance proceedings against ex-directors were held not maintainable because they were founded on an old inspection report, remained dormant for years, and were not supported by independent detection by the official liquidator during liquidation. The record did not establish conduct attracting sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Court found no justification for initiating action after such delay. On the materials placed, the alleged acts were not shown to be post-winding-up misfeasance capable of sustaining the proceedings, so the matter failed for want of jurisdiction and limitation. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:59:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111332 Misfeasance proceedings against ex-directors were held not maintainable because they were founded on an old inspection report, remained dormant for years, and were not supported by independent detection by the official liquidator during liquidation. The record did not establish conduct attracting sections 542 and 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Court found no justification for initiating action after such delay. On the materials placed, the alleged acts were not shown to be post-winding-up misfeasance capable of sustaining the proceedings, so the matter failed for want of jurisdiction and limitation. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111332