https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459474 A misfeasance claim under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be supported by specific, contemporaneous evidence showing misapplication, breach of trust, or loss attributable to the directors. A claim based mainly on figures from an earlier balance sheet and an unproduced valuation report was insufficient, because the alleged shortfall was not shown to relate to the same assets and inventories, and the remaining allegations concerning loans, cash, investments, and debtors were not backed by material proving wrongful retention or loss. On the record, the company also appeared to owe the first respondent, and some deposits were linked to utility connections during the company's early incorporation period. The application was therefore not proved. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:31:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459474 A misfeasance claim under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 must be supported by specific, contemporaneous evidence showing misapplication, breach of trust, or loss attributable to the directors. A claim based mainly on figures from an earlier balance sheet and an unproduced valuation report was insufficient, because the alleged shortfall was not shown to relate to the same assets and inventories, and the remaining allegations concerning loans, cash, investments, and debtors were not backed by material proving wrongful retention or loss. On the record, the company also appeared to owe the first respondent, and some deposits were linked to utility connections during the company's early incorporation period. The application was therefore not proved. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459474