9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent-company in liquidation and pay the official liquidator all the sums that they are liable to contribute together with interest. The applicant alleges that respondents Nos. 2 onwards as the former managing director and directors of the first respondent-company in liquidation have misapplied the funds of the company including the amount paid as security in the company during the trade arrangement between the company and himself and thereby they have become liable to be proceeded against under section 543 of the Companies Act. Earlier the applicant filed C.P. No. 45 of 1989 alleging that "the respondent-company is indebted to him to the tune of Rs. 5,54,910 (rupees five lakhs fifty-four thousand nine hundred and ten only) wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f respondents Nos. 2 to 8 who are the former managing director or director or officers of the company is that they retained or misapplied or misappropriated the fund of the company and they have become liable or accountable to refund the said sum of Rs. 5,54,910 to the company and their action in the matter of retention or misapplication or misappropriation amounts to misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company. A reading of the miscellaneous company application shows that there is no specific allegation against any of the former managing director or directors as to the role they have played in the alleged misapplication or misappropriation and consequent misfeasance. No details have been supplied in the application so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company arising out of such acts or omissions". This is a burden cast on the applicant to make liable the former directors. The applicant has not discharged that heavy burden cast on him. There is barely any substance in the application except a vague averment that "the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 who are former managing director and directors and officers of the company retained or misapplied or misappropriated and they have become liable or accountable to refund the said amount". Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited above, the applicant cannot successfully maintain the petition with this allegation. The applicant submits that he had made a deposit of Rs. 5,54,910 with the company in liquidation as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 543. In his evidence, the applicant has, during cross-examination made it amply clear that he has approached this court with this application to get back his money and not make the persons who are alleged to have misapplied the funds of the company contribute to the assets of the company. Thus, the application itself is a result of misconception. Even if the contention of the applicant that misapplication will amount to misfeasance as laid down in Indo-Burma Industries Ltd., In re [1957] 27 Comp. Cas. 390 (Cal) is accepted, in the absence of specific allegations which are necessary to pinpoint the misapplication or misappropriation by each of the respondents, the application cannot be entertained. This aspect has been reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
