Mr. Potter tried to call a general meeting. Mr. Barron intended to boycott this meeting but his train was met at Paddington by Mr. Potter, who proceeded to try to hold a meeting on the platform. He proposed Charles Herbert, William George Walter Barnard and John Tolhurst Musgrave as additional directors. Barron objected and Potter purported to use his casting vote as chairman of the Company. The court held that this was an ineffective meeting. In the circumstances, it was held that because of the deadlock on the board of directors, the powers were exercisable by the members in general meeting.
The judgement averred that as long as the income is derived from an agricultural source forming as the primary source, the exemption from tax laws can be claimed under the Income Tax Rules.
The case is considerably important in demonstrating the position of directors of the a company in managing the company's business. The Articles of Association can function as a means to limit the powers of the directors of the a company. However, simple resolutions which are like recommendations cannot be used as a means to force the directors to act in a certain manner.
The Ashbury Railways case laid the foundation of the ultra vires rules and confined the acts of the company within the ambit of the object clause of the MOA. This was rendered moot to a great extent after the introduction of the changes in the Companies Act 2006 since section 17 of the Act does not mandate any company to have a MOA.
This judgment established the involvement and the control of the government over the body must be pervasive, and the body in question must be financially and administratively dependent on the government in order to establish that the impugned body is indeed an instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution.
In this case, the judges favoured the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The Court held that the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1969 related to the award of compensation to the banks upon being nationalized had not been followed, and thus, the Act was liable to be struck down.
The concept of shadow director was discussed in detail in this case. A shadow director was differentiated from a de facto director and other kinds of directors in this case. The judges stated the rules to identify a shadow director or a de jure director.
This case laid down a basic rule that if a director had an interest in a corporate transaction, the transaction is voidable at the company's will, and it is the duty of directors to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.
In this case the Madras High Court opined that the writ of mandamus should not be issued when the purpose of the suit is to have the rights of the plaintiff declared, and there stands no issue for the enforcement of any obligation of the parties involved.
Enron Scam is the biggest corporate scam in the history of the USA. The article helps in understanding the modus operandi of the scam, role of the auditor of Enron Corporation in the scam, actions taken by the SEC and the federal courts to disclose the wrongdoings and punish the offenders, aftermath of the scam and its repercussions on the whole economy. The author at the end provides valuable recommendations to prevent such scams from happening in future.
The doctrine of constructive liability is an important principle as it serves its purpose in easing business regulations. It provides security to the companies while they are dealing with the outsiders. However, this provision was seen to be doing more wrong than good, thereby, its credibility was getting reduced. For that, the doctrine of indoor management was evolved by the courts to restrict the application of this provision when the rule in dispute is internal.
The main question that this article tried to answer was whether the term promoter and shareholder is the same, or different? The two being different from each other, the difference between them was tried to be explained.
This article first deals with the company at large and the people involved in a company. Further, it talks about the members of the company and the manner through which a person can become a member of the company. It also deals with the role of directors in a company and the qualifications to become a director in a company in India. Lastly, this article helps in explaining the difference between director and member of a company by analyzing their roles, powers and duties.
The present article deals with directors of companies in India. It also analyses the manner in which a person is appointed as a director in a company, the duties and powers of directors, etc. It further deals with the question that whether a person can be a director of two companies at a same time. The author concludes that a person can be a Director of two companies during the same time period.
The article begins by defining One Person Company. The author states that OPC is similar to a sole proprietorship and both have similar advantages, but, to the disadvantage of sole proprietorship, it entails unlimited liability whereas in an OPC the liability is limited. The article delves into benefits, features and impact in India of OPCs.
