Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1960 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1960 (4) TMI 39 - HC - Companies Law

Issues:
- Allegations of misfeasance against the respondent by the appellant
- Locus standi of the appellant to file the application under sections 185 and 195 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913
- Discretion of the court to grant the application
- Consideration of personal spite and hostility in invoking court powers
- Role of the appellant as a director in the transactions in question
- Recommendation for further investigation with the help of a qualified auditor

Analysis:

The judgment involves an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, in a case related to misfeasance allegations against the respondent by the appellant. The appellant sought directions for the respondent to account for his management of the company, pay due sums, and restore unlawful gains. The District Judge held that the appellant had failed to prove misfeasance by the respondent, stating that if any money was due, it should be pursued by the official liquidator. The judge also found the assignment of a promissory note irrelevant to the application and dismissed the appellant's claims.

Regarding the locus standi of the appellant to file the application under sections 185 and 195 of the Indian Companies Act, the court exercised discretion and concluded that the application should not be granted due to the appellant's role as a director during the relevant transactions. The court noted the personal spite and hostility of the appellant towards the respondent and emphasized that both directors shared liability for any loss to the company. The court deemed it undesirable for one director to invoke court powers against another director, especially considering the appellant's involvement in the transactions in question.

Despite dismissing the appeal, the court acknowledged the serious allegations made by the appellant and recommended further investigation with the assistance of a qualified auditor. Due to the lack of funds for the official liquidator to proceed, the court suggested that if a person provided funds, an auditor could investigate the allegations. The court highlighted that any potential misfeasance application should involve the appellant as a party along with other directors, emphasizing the need for a fair and comprehensive investigation before taking further legal action.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal with costs, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation into the allegations of misfeasance while considering the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in the company's affairs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates