The burden of proving misfeasance rests on the Official Liquidator, and the application must contain a detailed narration of specific acts of commission and omission on the part of each director and quantify the loss caused to the company.

1. This is an application under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. As the original records of the company were stated to be misplaced, this Court had ordered filing of F.I.R. to trace out the same. Accordingly as per orders of this Court dated 18.02.2005, F.I.R. was lodged, and ultimately it is not in dispute that the records could not be traced. Police Inspector, Sitabuldi Police Station has submitted his report on 30.03.2005. In this background, the present Company Application No.8/1965 with Company Petition No.8/1963 and other connected matters were listed before me on 10.07.2014. On that day, after hearing the respective counsel for the parties, this Court found that when original records were not available, present proceedings may not go on, as it's effective adjudication may not be possible. After passing orders accordingly and as on that date further progress in F.I.R. lodged was not known, after requesting the learned A.G.P. to assist the Court in the matter, case was required to be adjourned. This order dated 10.07.2014 has been recorded in Company Petition No.8/1963.

2. On 17.07.2014, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator invited attention to the report submitted by the Police Inspector, Police Station, Sitabuldi and then this Court found that Company Application Nos. 8/1965, 8/1967, 3/1967, 4/1967, 5/1967 and 6/1967 filed under Section 542 and 543 of the Companies Act were pending against approximately 142 Ex-Directors. The matters were transferred from Bombay to Nagpur. Learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator fairly stated that in changed situation, proceedings under Section 542 of the Companies Act may lapse, but, proceedings under Section 543 will be required to be decided. Contention was, cognizance was taken at Bombay after considering report of Chartered Accountant. Arguments and counter arguments on that basis were recorded. This Court then found that question – Whether proceedings under Section 543 of the Companies Act can be continued on the strength of Judge's Summons issued at Bombay, needed to be decided and at the request of parties, matter was adjourned further. This order dated 17.07.2014 is recorded in Company Petition No. 8/1963. Further order was passed on 24.07.2014, after a communication dated 19th 20th May, 1964 sent by the Firm of Chartered Accountant at Bombay namely Batliboi and Purohit and inspection report Part-I and Part-II prepared by that Firm on 24.12.1962, were produced.

3. It appears that thereafter this matter was placed before the Court on 21.11.2014 and on that day Court decided to consider prayers in Company Petition No.8/1963. Those prayers were considered on 27.11.2014, and Company Petition No.8/1963 was disposed of. This Court then found that only question to be gone into in the said Company Petition was about validity of mortgage and that validity was not disputed by any body.

4. In so far as the present matter is considered, order was passed on 31.07.2014, noticing that 3rd part of report of Chartered Accountant – Batliboi and Purohit, could not be traced. Official Liquidator then pointed out that he got few corresponding ledgers and cash books, on the basis of which fresh report of Chartered Accountant in relation to claim made in Judge's Summons can be obtained. Accordingly as requested, this Court granted time of two weeks to the Official Liquidator to complete that exercise. Matter was then considered on 14.08.2014, and said time was extended. On 28.08.2014, Official Liquidator stated that on 15 items, Chartered Accountant found material. He sought time to peruse the report prepared by the new Chartered Accountant on the basis of the available material. Court then adjourned the matter to 11.09.2014.

5. The matter came up before me again on 31.10.2014, when learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator pointed out report dated 27.08.2014 prepared by Chartered Accountant M/s. Pimparkhede & Co. He submitted that enquiry into irregul