SOME IMPORTANT CASE LAWS OF COMPANY LAW FOR CSEXECUTIVE STUDENTS

By -

  1. SALAMON V. SALAMON AND CO. LTD                                                                                                                                               - Based on companies corporate personality.
  2. LEE V. LEE'S  AIRFARMING LTD.                                                                                                                                                          - Members are different from the company.
  3. NEW HORIZONS LTD V. UNION OF INDIA                                                                                                                                            - in the case of a joint venture co.the experience of shareholder of a company can be regarded as experience of a company.
  4. UNION BANK OF INDIA V. KHADER INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER                                                    - company is a person and can be poper
  5. R.C COOPER V. UNION OF INDIA.                                                                                                                                                           -an individua's right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of a company.
  6. TULIKA V. PARRY AND COMPANY                                                                                                                                                        - a joint stock company resides where its place of incorporation is....
  7. JONES V. LIPMAN                                                                                                                                                                                       - prevention of fraud
  8. R.G FILMS LTD.                                                                                                                                                                                           - where a corporate facade is relly only an agency instrumentally.
  9. DAILMER COMPANY LTD V. CONTINENTAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY LTD.                                                        - trading with enemy (determining enemy character of company)
  10. MR. DINSHAW MANAKJEE PETIT V. C.I.T                                                                                                                                           -tax evasion (protection of revenue)
  11. WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD. V. THE ASSOCIATED RUBBER CO. LTD.                                                                                                                                                                                         - avoidance of welfare legislation
  12. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA                                                                         - government company is not a government department nor government establishment.
  13. A.K BINDAL V. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                                                                                                                                               - it is the responsibility of the company to pay the salary not of the government.
  14. KELNER V. BAXTER                                                                                                                                                                                    -company cannot retify contract before incorporation and promoter is personally liable.
  15. EARLANGER V. NEW SAMBEREO PHOSPHATE COMPANY.                                                                                                             -full disclosure of facts by promoter should be done, they are not allowed to make secret profits.
  16. JUBILEE COTTON MILLS LTD. V. LEWIS                                                                                                                                               - conclusivness of C.O.I.     ( the date on the certificate is the born day of company weather it has been written mistakely)
  17. MOOSA V. EBRAHIM                                                                                                                                                                                     - conclusiveness of  C.O.I
  18. BOWMAN V. SECULAR SOCIETY LTD.                                                                                                                                                   - C.O.I. can legalise the existence of company but is not empowered to make its unlawful objects legal.
  19. ASHBURY RAILWAY CARRIAGE AND IRON COMPANY LTD. V. RICHIE.                                                                                     - doctrine of ultra vires
  20. LEENARDS CARRYING COMPANY LTD. V. ASIASTIC PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    - doctrine of alter ego     ( M.D. made liable for wrong doing of company)
  21. BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. V. EMPLOYEE UNION                                                                                                    -employee opposing alteration in situation clause.
  22. EDWING V. BUTTERCUP MARGARINE CO.                                                                                                                                            - both of them using same fancy name 'buttercup'.                                                                            ( alteration of name clause)
  23. ATLAS CYCLES HARYANA LTD. V. ATLAS PRODUCT PVT LTD.                                                                                                        - name restrained to defendant
  24. ALL INDIA RAILWAY MEN'S BENEFIT FUND V. JAMADAR BAHESHWARNATH BALI                                                                                                                                                                                                                     - the alteration of article of association must not constitute a fraud on the minority by a majority.
  25. ROYAL BRITISH BANK V. TURQUAND                                                                                                                                                    - doctrine of indoor management v/s doctrine of constructive notice.
  26. Re. CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (P) LTD.                                                                                                                                              - conversion of equity shares into redeemable preference shares may be affected only through a process of reduction of capital.
  27. ARJUN TUKARAM SHELGAONKAR V. URMILLA VAIKUNTH                                                                                                           - right of share holders to raise question.
  28. NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. V. NEEDLE INDUSTRIES NEWEY (INDIA) HOLDING LTD.                                                                                                                                                                                                - interference of tribunal when the directors of company use their powers for the personnel interest and not for the benefit of the company.
  29. BRUASWICK AND CANADA RLY AND LAND CO. V. MUUGERIDGE                                                                                                - GOLDEN RULE OR GOLDEN LEGACY                                                                                   ( it is the responsibility of those who issue the prospectus to be truthful in all respect for framing a prospectus)
  30. R.V V/S KYLSANT                                                                                                                                                                                            - GOLDEN RULE OF GOLDEN LEGACY.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lee v. Lee's air farming ltd (1961) A.C. 12(p.c.)

By -
(Members are different from co.- corperate personality) A company was formed for the purpose of aerial top dressing.              Lee, a qualified pilot held all but one of the shares in the company. he voted himself the Managing Director and got appointed as chief pilot at a salary.   He was killed in air crash while wrkng for company and her widow claim compensation for death of her husband in the course of his employment.              The company opposed on the ground that lee was not a mere worker as the same person could not be the employer and employee at the same time.                 than, the decision of privy council comes that lee is the M.D. at the same time the chef pilot (i.e. the servant of the company)                  lee was the seprate person from the company he formedand his widow was entitled to get the compensation . In effect the magic of incorporate personality enabled him(lee) to be the master and the servant at the same time and enjoy advanta
Read more

OBJECTIVE OF STUDYING INCOME TAX

By -
What is objective of studying tax.. especially income tax?? The taxes are the basic source of revenue for government , revenue raised from the taxes are utilized for meeting the expense of government like, provisions of education , infrasuctural facilities such as road dams etc.. The taxes that are levied directly on the income or wealth of person are the direct taxes while the taxes which are paid by the person other than who utilizes the product are indirect taxes.. while at present all the indirect taxes are subsumed in  GST... but still some are not subsumed in gst like customs.. GST(Goods and Service taxes) Income tax is one of the form of direct taxes.. and by studying income tax.. we get a proper knowledge about the tax on income of an individual ,company  firm.. etc..
Read more

SHELF PROSPECTUS

By -
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 31 OFCOMPANIES ACT, 2013 MEANING SHELF PROSPECTUS MEANS A PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE COMPANIES AS PRESCRIBED BY SEBI (PFC's etc) FOR SUBSCRIPTION IN ONE OR MORE ISSUES OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD (ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF 1ST ISSUE) WITHOUT THE ISSUE OF A FURTHER PROSPECTUS AT EVERY STAGE OF OFFER OF SECURITIES.     VALIDITY SHELF PROSPECTUS WILL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, FROM THE DATE OF FIRST ISSUE OF SECURITIES. INFORMATION MEMORANDUM A COMPANY FILLING A SHELF PROSPECTUS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FILE AN INFORMATION MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE SHELF PROSPECTUS. UPDATE OF INFORFAMTION MEMORANDUM. AN UPDATE OF INFORMATION MEMORANDUM SHALL BE FILLED , EVERY TIME AN OFFER OF SECURITIES IS MADE. SUCH MEMORANDUM TOGETHER WITH THE SHELF PROSPECTUS SHALL CONSTITUTE THE PROSPECTUS.
Read more