Mrs. Meera was the Managing Director of ME India Private Limited. During her tenure, she sold few properties of the Company and cleared all the registered mortgages. She also diverted Company's funds of ₹ 50 Lakhs to her

Section 336 of the Companies Act, 2013 also covers the offences which were committed by the officers of the company when the company was not under winding up. In case where the company is subsequently ordered to be wound up, the offences committed by the officers of the company while the company was a going concern, will still be dealt under section 336, though such offence could be dealt with under other relevant sections had it remain a going concern. Action covered under Section 336(1)(d) are those which were committed within the twelve months immediately before the commencement of the winding up or at any time thereafter. Further, Section 329 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that any transfer of property of any kind by a company other than the transfer made in the ordinary course of business or the transfer is made in good faith and for a value consideration made within a period of one year prior to the presentation of the petition for winding up shall be void against the liquidator. The facts provided are similar to the facts of Fodare Pty Ltd. v. Shearn [2011] case. Shearn was the sole director of the Company during the relevant period and by sale of a property of the Company, she cleared all registered mortgages and diverted funds to the tune of A$ 383,000 to her bank account and diverted another A$ 251,000 to pay up and discharge a mortgage over a her daughter's property. The company was wound up. Liquidator commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that Shearn was in breach of fiduciary duties and her daughter was charged on the ground that she falls within the ambit of a constructive trustee as she was aware that she is receiving funds out of proceeds arising from sale of company's property. It was held that Shearn was liable to the Company for equitable compensation of both the amounts and statutory compensation together with interest and costs. Further, the Supreme Court held that her daughter was also liable to the company for equitable compensation of A$ 251,000 plus interest. The Court found that the daughter might be aware that her mother who was a former bankrupt did not have money and the property that was sold belonged to the company. The Court said the liability of the mother and the daughter for equitable compensation of A$251,000 plus interest would run concurrently such that both of them will be jointly and severally liable. Hence it can be concluded that Mrs. Meera and her daughter would be jointly and severally liable for diversion of Company's funds and the Liquidator of the company can commence proceeding against Mrs. Meera and her daughter after following due procedures provided in the Act.