https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194459 In misfeasance proceedings against company directors, the appellate court was justified in allowing additional evidence and cross-examination because the trial court had curtailed the respondents' defence by refusing that opportunity. The direction under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was upheld. On the merits, the alleged liabilities were examined item by item, and only claims supported by specific pleadings and reliable proof were sustained. Claims for commission on the Stein-Muller boiler transaction, the General Motors pumping sets, and further commission on Nagpur supplies failed for want of proof, while unsupported stock, furniture and motor car claims were rejected. The wrongful remission to the Hyderabad concern was proved and allowed. The High Court's modified decree was maintained in substance. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:36:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194459 In misfeasance proceedings against company directors, the appellate court was justified in allowing additional evidence and cross-examination because the trial court had curtailed the respondents' defence by refusing that opportunity. The direction under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was upheld. On the merits, the alleged liabilities were examined item by item, and only claims supported by specific pleadings and reliable proof were sustained. Claims for commission on the Stein-Muller boiler transaction, the General Motors pumping sets, and further commission on Nagpur supplies failed for want of proof, while unsupported stock, furniture and motor car claims were rejected. The wrongful remission to the Hyderabad concern was proved and allowed. The High Court's modified decree was maintained in substance. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 26 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194459