Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... vs Hari Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate ... on 4 May, 2007 cites

P.K. Nedungadi vs The Malayalee Bank Ltd. (In ... on 9 February, 1971

15. Shri Subhodh Kumar has relied upon judgments in Official Liquidator, Janhitkari Alap Bachat Rindayatri Sansthan Pvt. Ltd v. Vishnu Kumar Pradhan and Ors. 2001 Camp Cases 1026 (Rajasthan); K Madhava Nayak and Ors. v. Popular Bank Ltd. and P.K. Nedungadi v. The Malayalee Bank Ltd and Ors. in support of his submission that even if directors have not misapplied or retained the properties and it is proved that he acted reckless manner without taking care of statutory requirement, and applying basic common sense in sanction of the amounts which could not be recovered, such director commits misfeasance, which is covered by Section 543(2) of the Companies Act 1956. According to Shri Subodh Kumar, apart from misapplication or retainer, the misfeasance and breach of trust also refer to something which the director or the officer of company has done by which the companies properties have been wasted and company credit is improperly pledged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - A N Grover - Full Document

K.N. Srinivasa Iyer vs The Joint Official Liquidators Of ... on 19 February, 1963

In K.N. Srinivasa v. Joint Official Liquidator of Nurani Union Bank Ltd and Ors. relied by Shri Subodh Kumar in support of his submission, the respondent had inspite of resolution passed by Board of Directors, to the effect that the advances shall not be made without sanction of Board of Directors, made huge advances without consulting other Directors. There are no such allegations in the present case. The applicant has not pleaded that the Board of Directors was not authorized to sanction these loans and advances or that there was any restriction put by the Board for giving the advances.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Official Liquidator, Janhitkari Alap ... vs Vishnu Kumar Pradhan And Ors. on 26 August, 1994

15. Shri Subhodh Kumar has relied upon judgments in Official Liquidator, Janhitkari Alap Bachat Rindayatri Sansthan Pvt. Ltd v. Vishnu Kumar Pradhan and Ors. 2001 Camp Cases 1026 (Rajasthan); K Madhava Nayak and Ors. v. Popular Bank Ltd. and P.K. Nedungadi v. The Malayalee Bank Ltd and Ors. in support of his submission that even if directors have not misapplied or retained the properties and it is proved that he acted reckless manner without taking care of statutory requirement, and applying basic common sense in sanction of the amounts which could not be recovered, such director commits misfeasance, which is covered by Section 543(2) of the Companies Act 1956. According to Shri Subodh Kumar, apart from misapplication or retainer, the misfeasance and breach of trust also refer to something which the director or the officer of company has done by which the companies properties have been wasted and company credit is improperly pledged.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd vs P. A. Tendolkar (Dead) By L. Rs. And Ors on 19 January, 1973

In Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd v. PA. Tendolkar (Dead) by LRs , the question which arose for consideration was as to whether a director having regard to the provisions of Section 235 of the Companies Act, committed acts of misfeasance. The said decision ex facie has no application in the present case. Therein, this Court was concerned with a case where the director was held to he not merely cognizant of but guilty of commission of fraud in the conduct of the business of a company even through no specific act of dishonesty was proved against him personally. The duties of a Managing Director are provided for in the Companies Act as also Articles of Association of the Company. He, thus, holds a position of trust vis-a-vis the shareholders of the company. In that case all the directors were found to have committed acts of fraud. The Court took recourse to the provisions of Section 45H of the Companies Act wherein special provisions for assessing damages against delinquent directors have been laid down. Even in England where award of exemplary or aggravated damages for insult etc. to a person has now been held to be. punitive, exception has been carved out if the injury is due to 'oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the Government' (Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts). Misfeasance in public office is explained by Wade in his book on Administrative Law thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 99 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next