The company is a separate legal entity which confers its own rights and duties. The members of the company have limited liability in the normal course of business but can be held liable in extraordinary circumstances where the court feels that there is a misuse of the Principle.
This is a landmark case law where the corporate veil was lifted to make the actual person behind the sham companies liable for a super-tax on an aggregated income. It was an instance of the sham transfer, even though the transaction ends with the formal registration of the document before the Registrar.
The action by LIC of issuing a requisition notice for the replacement of nine directors by nominating new Directors is not contrary to the provisions of section 284 of the Companies Act, 1956, nor was it ultra vires and the powers vested with LIC under section 6 of the Life Insurance Corporation was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In This case after reviewing the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court concluded that the District forums, State Commission and the National Commission are not considered “courts” even though they are vested with some authorities of the Civil Court they are precisely “quasi-judicial” bodies for rendering speedy and inexpensive redressal of disputes to the consumers. The idea of these bodies or agencies is to provide justice and fair treatment to consumers in the matters of goods and services. The scheme of “business-to-consumer” disputes helped the court in interpreting that words like “consumer” and “commercial purposes”
This case dealt with the jurisprudence of defining ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and also with the validity of the precedents decided before the Amendments in the Act.
This case deals with the process by which a company can change its status. This means that the company will now need to follow all the guidelines in its Memorandum of association and Article of Association that are applicable on the Private Limited companies. This will also mean that the company would now need to roll out its share or debenture applications, if it wishes to, as per the guidelines that are applicable to Private industries. It would have to maintain the capital and assets as required by a private limited company under the Companies act, 2013.
The case analyses the scope of issuing bonus shares out of the Revaluation Reserve of a firm if the Article of Association permits. It doing so it discusses with the provisions laid down under the Companies Act, on issue of Bonus Shares. As per the provisions laid down by the Companies Act, A company is authorized by law to issue fully paid-up bonus shares to its members out of Free Reserves, Securities Premium Account or Capital Redemption Reserve Account.
The compensation for mismanagement as well as for oppression does not exist in the first place when there is no proof of the act that is alleged. The case also deals with the rules governing annual meetings of a body corporate.
This Case establishes the point that acting as the director of any corporation does not make one liable for unforeseen mistakes or mistakes made while acting in the best interest of the firm. If a person undertakes an action believing it to be in the best interests of the firm, after exercising due diligence the action cannot be recorded as misrepresentation or breach of trust.
This write-up examines the copyright infringement claim made by t-series against ROPOSO in the light of the right of an intermediary and the concept of Safe Harbour Protection. It also analyses the liability of an intermediary with the help of conflicting decisions.
