34 . Under section 543 of the Act, the court is vested with jurisdiction to examine the conduct of the past or present director, manager, liquidator or any other officer of the company to find out whether he has misapplied or retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company; or he has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company and, where any such conduct is found attributed to any such person, then, to compel him to repay and restore the money or property, or any part thereof to the company. In other words, under this section, the court is to examine the conduct of an individual director or officer and to pass an order against him, if such a person is personally found to be liable for misapplication, etc., of the money or property of the company or, otherwise, is guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company. It is thus clear that, to enable the court to examine the conduct of an individual director or officer and to pass an effective order to make him personally liable for misapplication, etc., of the money or the property of the company, there has to be positive and specific evidence and pleadings in respect of the individual director of an act of the nature contemplated by the section. In the absence of such specific allegations and positive evidence, it is not possible or proper for the court to indulge in a fishing or roving enquiry so as to compel the individual director to reimburse and/or compensate the company. The principles with regard to the pleadings and proof are well-settled. There cannot be a general and roving
