https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212788 Whether misfeasance was established by former directors was decided by assessing whether the Official Liquidator proved appropriation or other misconduct causing loss to the company in liquidation. The court treated the burden of proof as resting on the liquidator and evaluated affidavits, receipts, documentary proofs of hypothecation to secured creditors, auction realisations and admissions in cross examination. Because documentary evidence and explanations showed secured creditor possession, receipts and settlements and there was no specific evidence of appropriation or conduct by the respondents causing loss, misfeasance was not proved and the application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212788 Whether misfeasance was established by former directors was decided by assessing whether the Official Liquidator proved appropriation or other misconduct causing loss to the company in liquidation. The court treated the burden of proof as resting on the liquidator and evaluated affidavits, receipts, documentary proofs of hypothecation to secured creditors, auction realisations and admissions in cross examination. Because documentary evidence and explanations showed secured creditor possession, receipts and settlements and there was no specific evidence of appropriation or conduct by the respondents causing loss, misfeasance was not proved and the application was dismissed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212788