https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212948 Misfeasance under Section 543(1) requires proof of breach of trust, misapplication or retention of company money, and actual loss; mere imprudent or disputed accounting conduct is insufficient. The Karnataka High Court accepted the explanation that the challenged journal entries and fund movements were accounting adjustments, settlement of inter se dues, and business transactions made during efforts to revive the company. As the materials did not show dishonest diversion of funds, personal retention of money, or deliberate loss to the company, the allegation of misfeasance failed and liability for the claimed amount was not established. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212948 Misfeasance under Section 543(1) requires proof of breach of trust, misapplication or retention of company money, and actual loss; mere imprudent or disputed accounting conduct is insufficient. The Karnataka High Court accepted the explanation that the challenged journal entries and fund movements were accounting adjustments, settlement of inter se dues, and business transactions made during efforts to revive the company. As the materials did not show dishonest diversion of funds, personal retention of money, or deliberate loss to the company, the allegation of misfeasance failed and liability for the claimed amount was not established. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212948