company law case study

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Important caselaws on Company law Leading Cases on Company Law

Related Papers

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Hakan Kinik

ANA MARÍA CARVAJAL

Janae Lockett-Reynolds

Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi

Demet YILDIZ TURGUT

Sustainability

roberto de lieto vollaro

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Yehia Taher

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Dr.Raina Ijaz

Journal of Chromatography A

JUANITA CATALINA MENDOZA ESKOLA

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Alexandra Battaglia Mayer

RELATED PAPERS

IQBAL FERDIAN RAMADHAN

Dissertationes Forestales

Ibrahim Favada

Politics by Other Means: Science and Religion in the 21st Century

William Grassie

ECB Working Paper No. …

Antonello D'Agostino

Héctor Ñañez

COUTO, Lívia M. A.

Lívia Albuquerque

Ethiopian Journal of Health Development

Helmut Kloos

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Kathleen O'Malley

The Journal of Politics

Barbara Mellers

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

Barry Pittendrigh

Deu Muhendislik Fakultesi Fen ve Muhendislik

Hilal Arslan

aubrey hepler

Handbook on Class and Social Stratification in China

Xiaogang Wu

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Danielle Braje

Important caselaws on Company law

Leading Cases on Company Law

As the trend of asking questions have been changed by ICAI, I thought this might be useful. I compiled these decided case laws from various sources like RTP, study module, compilation of suggested answers. I am laying down only those which I feel important from examination point of view. These caselaws make the concept even clearer because example is a better teacher.

Cases on separate legal entity

Kandoli tea company Ltd(1886)

Facts Certain persons transferred their properties in the name of company on which tax was payable.

Petition Petitioners claimed exemption from such tax on the ground that the transfer was from them individually to themselves in another name.

Judgment Company is separate from its shareholders and this should be treated as transfer.

Saloman Vs. Saloman & Co. Ltd. (1895 - 99)

Facts- Saloman sold his business to a company named Saloman & Company Ltd., which he formed. Saloman took 20,000 shares. The price paid by the company to Saloman was 30,000, but instead of paying him, cash, the company gave him 20,000 fully paid shares of 1 each &10,000 in debentures. The company wound up & the assets of the company amounted to 6,000 only. Debts amounted to 10,000 due to Saloman & Secured by debentures and a further 7,000 due to unsecured creditors. The unsecured creditors claimed that as Saloman & Co. Ltd., was really the same person as Saloman, he could not owe money to himself and that they should be paid their 7,000 first.

1. A Company is a "legal person" or "legal entity" separate from and capable of surviving beyond the lives of, its members.

2. The company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or Trustee for them.

3. Saloman was entitled to 6,000 as the company was an entirely separate person from Saloman.

4. The unsecured creditors got nothing.

Lee Vs. Lee's Farming Co. Ltd. (1960)

Facts- Lee incorporated a company of which he was the managing director. In that capacity he appointed himself as a pilot of the company. While on the business of the company he was lost in a flying accident. His widow claimed compensation for personal injuries to her husband while in the course of his employment. It was argued that no compensation was due because L & lee's Air Farming Ltd. were the same person.

1.L was separate person from the company he formed and compensation was payable.

2. His widow recovered compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act

3. A member of a company can contract with a company of which he is a shareholder.

4. The directors are not precluded from being an employee of the company for the purpose of workmen's compensation legislation.

MacauraVs. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd. (1925)

Facts- M was the holder of nearly all the shares except one of a timber company. He was also a substantial creditor of the company. He insured the company's timber in his own name. The timber was destroyed by fire & M claimed the loss from Insurance Company.

1.The Insurance Company was not held liable to him.

2.A shareholder cannot insure the company's property in his own name even if he is the owner of all or most of the company's shares.

Lifting of corporate veil

Gol ford Motor Co. Vs. Home (1933)

Facts- Home was appointed as a managing director of the plaintiff company on the condition that "he shall not at any time while he shall hold the office of a managing director or afterwards, solicit or entice away the customers of the company." His employment was determined under an agreement.

Shortly afterwards he opened a business in the name of a company which solicited the plaintiffs customers.

Judgment-It was held that the company was a mere cloack or shaw for the purpose of enabling the defendant to commit a breach of his covenant against solicitation. The court will refuse to uphold the separate existence of the company where it is formed for a fraudulent purpose or to avoid legal obligations.

Daimler Co. Ltd. Vs. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. (1916)

Facts- In a company incorporated in England for the purpose of selling tyres manufactured in Germany by a German Company, all the shares except one was held by the German subjects residing in Germany. The remaining one was held by a British. Thus the real control of English Company was in German hands. Question arose whether the company had become an enemy company due to war&should be barred from maintaining the action.

1.A Company incorporated in United Kingdom is a legal entity, a creation of law with the status & capacity which the law confers.

2.It is not a natural person with mind or conscience. It can neither be loyal nor disloyal. It can be neither friend nor enemy. But it can assume enemy character when persons in defacto control of its affairs are residents in any enemy country or whenever resident, are acting under the control of enemies.

3.Held that company was an enemy company for the purpose of trading and therefore it was, barred from maintaining the action.

Workmen employed in associated rubber industries

Facts A subsidiary company was formed wholly by the holding company with no assets of its own except those transferred to it by the holding company, with no business or income of its own except receiving dividend from shares transferred to it by the holding company.

Judgment Court held that the company was formed as a devide to reduce the profitsof the holding company and thereby reduce the bonus to workmen.

F.G.Films Ltd., case

Facts An American company produced a film in India actually in the name of British company wherein 90% of the share capital was held by the chairman of the American company which financed the production of the film.

Judgement The contention of the sensor board of films refusing to register the film on the ground that British company has acted merely as an agent of British company was correct.

COI is conclusive evidence that all the requirements have been complied with

Moosa Goola Arif Vs Ibrahim Goola Arif

Facts Company registered on the basis of MOA&AOA signed by two persons and a guardian on behalf of 5 minor members. Guardian signed separately for each of 5 memebers. The ROC however registered the company and issued under his hand a certificate of incorporation.

Petition Plaintiff contended that COI should be declared as void.

Judgment The court held the certificate to be conclusive for all purposes.

Jubilee Cotton Mills Ltd.,

Facts The ROC issued a COI on Jan 8thbut dated it Jan 6thwhich was the date he received application. On Jan 6ththe company made an allotment of shares to Lewis

Judgment Court held that certificate was conclusive evidence of incorporation on Jan 6thand that the allotment was not void on the ground that it was made before the company was incorporated.

Decided case on objects clause of MOA

Crowns bank case

Facts A companys objects clause enabled it to act as a bank and further to invest in securities and to underwrite issue of securities. The company abandoned its banking business and confined itself to investment activities.

Judgment Court held that the company was not entitled to do.

Doctrine of ultravires

Ashbury railways carriage & Iron Co Ltd Vs Riche

Facts A railway company was formed with an object of selling railway wagons. The directors entered into a contract with Richie to finance the construction of railway line. The shareholders later rejected the contract as ultravires.

Judgment The court held that the contract was ultravires and therefore null and void.

Doctrine of indoor management / Turquand rule

Royal British Bank Vs. Turquand (1856)

Facts- The Directors of a company borrowed a sum of money from the plaintiff. The company's articles provided that the directors might borrow on bonds such sums as may from time to time be authorised by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company. The shareholders claimed that there had been no such resolution authorising the loan and, therefore, it was taken without their authority. The company was however held bound by the loan. Once it was found that the directors could borrow subject to a resolution, the plaintiff had a right to infer that the necessary resolution must have been passed.

1.Persons dealing with the company are bound to read the registered documents and to see that the proposed dealing is not inconsistent therewith.

2.Outsiders are bound to know the external position of the company, but are not bound to know its indoor management.

3.Company may ratify the ultra vires borrowing by the directors if it is taken bonafide for the benefit of the company.

Exception to Turquand rule

Ruben Vs. Great Fingall Consolidated (1906)

Facts- The plaintiff was the transferee of a share certificate issued under the seal of a defendant company. The certificate was issued by the company's secretary, who had affixed the seal of the company & forged the signatures of two directors.

1.It is quite true that persons dealing with limited liability companies are not bound to enquire into their indoor management and will not be affected by irregularities of which they have no notice. But the doctrine of indoor management, which is well established, applies to irregularities which otherwise might affect a genuine transaction. It can't apply to a forgery.

2.Plaintiffs suit for damages did not succeeded because turquand's rule did not apply where the document was forged.

Anand Biharilal Vs Dinshaw and Co.,

Facts The plaintiff accepted a transfer of the companys property from its accountant.

Judgment The court held that since it is beyond the scope of an accountants authority, it was held void.

The offer in prospectus should be made to public (atleast to 50 persons)

Nash Vs Lynde

Facts Some copies of documents marked strictly confidential and containing particulars of a proposed issue of shares, were sent by the managing director to his relatives and friends. Thus the document was passed on privately through a small circle of friends of directors.

Judgment The court held that there was no issue to public, and it doesnot amount to prospectus as it was not offered to public.

Who can sue on a false and misleading prospectus

Only primary market allotees

Peek Vs Gurney

Facts A fraudulent prospectus was issued by the directors. Peek received a copy of it and did not took any shares. After several months Peek bought few shares from the stock exchange.

Judgment His action against the directors for fraudulent prospectus was rejected as he took the shares throughthe secondary market.

Misc. Case laws

Needle Industries Ltd. Vs. Needle Industries ly (India) Holding Ltd. (1981)

Facts-The articles of a private company contained a clause that when the directors decided to increase the capital of the company by the issue of shares the same should be offered to the shareholders, and if they failed to take, may be offered to others. The company was a wholly owned subsidiary of an English Company. The Govt, of India adopted a policy of diluting foreign holdings. The company accordingly issued shares to its employees and relatives reducing the foreign holding to 60%. The company became a deemed public company because more than 28% of its share capital was held by a body corporate.

1.A deemed public company is neither a private company nor a public company but a company in a third category.

2.If the power of appointing additional directors is delegated to the Board by the articles, the Board can appoint additional directors without taking this item on the agenda of its meeting.

Gramophone Ltd. Vs. tanley (1908)

1."Even a resolution of a numerical majority, at a general meeting cannot impose its will upon the directors. When the articles have confided to them the control of the company's affairs."

2.A company will be regarded as an Indian Company even if it is incorporated in India by promoters of foreign nationality.

T.R. PRATT Ltd. Vs. Sasson & Co. Ltd. (1936)

Facts- There were three companies, namely, 'S\ 'MT' & 'P' Company. S company had been financing P Company for a number of years and all transactions of loans were entered into through the agency of MT Company which held almost all the shares of P Company. The Directors of MT Company were also the Directors of P Company and this fact was known to S Company. An equitable mortgage was created on the property of 'P' Company for a loan granted by S to MT Company. In the winding up of P Company, it was held that the official liquidator was entitled to avoid the equitable mortgage as S Company had the knowledge of the facts through its directors.

1.Just as in case of agency, a notice to agent will amount to a notice to the principal, in the same way a notice to director will be deemed as a notice to the company.

2.Money having borrowed and used for the benefit of the principal, i.e. company in either paying off debts or for its legitimate business, the company could not repudiate its liability on the ground that the agents i.e., directors had no authority from the company to borrow.

3. "Under the law an incorporated company is a distinct entity, and although all the shares may be practically controlled by one person, in law a company is a distinct entity and it is not permissible or relevant to enquire whether the directors belonged to the same family or whether it is compendiously described as one man company.

EwingVs. Butter Cut Margarine Company Ltd. (1917)

Facts- The plaintiff was an incorporated firm carrying on substantial business under the trade name of Butter Cap Dairy Company. The defendant company was registered to trade in similar commodities and selected the name bonafide believing that there was no other company in existence with a similar name. The plaintiff alleged that the name of the company would lead to confusion and was detrimental to the plaintiffs business.

Judgment-Plaintiff was entitled to restrain the ly registered company from carrying on business on the ground that the public might reasonably think that the registered company was connected with his business.

Mackinnon Mackenzee & Co. Re, (1967)

Facts- A Company desired to shift its registered office from the State of West Bengal to Bombay. The Company's petition was resisted by the state on the grounds of loss of revenue.

Judgment- Held that there is no statutory right of the state, as a state, to intervene in an application made u/s 17 for alteration of the place of the registered office of a company. To hold that the possibility of the loss of revenue is not only relevant, but of persuasive force in regard to the change is to rob the company of the statutory power conferred on it by Sec. 17. The question of loss of revenue to one state would have to be considered in the total conspectus of revenue for the Republic of India and no parochial consideration should be allowed to turn the scale in regard to change of registered office from one state to another within India.

Scientific Poultry Breeder's Association, Re (1933)

Facts- Memorandum of the company prohibited payment of any remuneration to the directors. When the business of the company increased it was found that the directors could not pay sufficient attention unless some remuneration was paid to them.

Judgment-Company was allowed amendment to enable it to pay remuneration to its managers, which was formerly forbidden, being necessary for efficient management.

Re Cyclists Touring Club. (1907)

Facts- The Company's business was to promote, assist & protect cyclists on the public roads. The company by altering the object clause desired to include among the persons to be assisted all tourists including motorists.

1.The club not allowed to undertake protection of motorists also, as cyclists had to be protected against motorists.

2.It was impossible to combine the two business as one of the objects of the company was to protect cyclists against motorists.

Peveril Gold Mines Ltd. Re (1898)

Facts- The articles provided that no winding up petition could be presented without the consent of two directors or unless a resolution to wind up was passed at a general meeting or the petitioner held one-fifth of the share capital. None of these conditions was fulfilled.

1.Restriction was invalid & the petition could be presented.

2.Sec. 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 confers the right on a shareholder to petition for winding up of the company in certain circumstances.

This right can't be excluded or limited by the articles.

3.Each member is entitled to say that there shall be no breach of the Articles and he is entitled to an injunction to prevent breach.

Hulton Vs. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co. (1865)

Facts- A resolution passed at a general meeting of a company altered the articles by inserting the power to issue shares with preferential dividend. The memorandum contained no such power.

The alteration was inoperative.

Erlanger Vs. Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878)

Facts- Erlanger was the head of a syndicate who purchased an Island containing mines of Phosphate for 55,000 pounds Then formed a company to buy this Island. A contract was made between X a nominee of the syndicate and the company for its purchase at 1,10,000 pounds. A prospectus was then issued. Many persons took shares. The company failed & the liquidator sued the promoter for the refund of the profit.

1.Promoters stand in a fiduciary position. They have in their hands the creation & moulding of the company.

2.The promoters is in the situation a kin to that of a trustee of the company, & his dealings with it must be open and fair.

3.Promoter is guilty of breach of trust if he sells property to the company without informing the company that the property belongs to him or he may commit a breach of trust by accepting a bonus or commission from a person who sells property to the company.

Published by

Vinay Raja (student-IPCC) Category Corporate Law Report

Trending Online Classes

Live class on Bonus & Gratuity(with recording)

GST Live Certification Course (39th Batch) - April 2024 (Weekend Batch) (With Certificate)

"Live class on Python for Financial Analysis: Unlocking Efficiency in Accounting and Finance"

CCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to [email protected]

Browse by Category

Corporate Law
Info Technology
Shares & Stock
Professional Resource
Union Budget
Miscellaneous

Whatsapp Groups

India's largest network for finance professionals

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Global Corporate Law

Landmark cases in company law.

Victoria Barnes and Sally Wheeler (eds)

This book aims to add a new dimension to the burgeoning scholarship on landmark cases. The body of literature, which began with studies of key areas of private law, has gathered pace in recent years. It now has such momentum that there is a revisionist trend and a second wave of literature that revisits the first set of case studies. [1] The Landmark Case in… series has, for example, over 10 volumes with more planned. These books focus on foundational cases and typically cover fields of law, such as contract, property, torts, as one might well expect, but also now also extend to the more specialist and idiosyncratic areas of law, namely medical law, intellectual property law and so on. [2] Despite the growth of this literature, there is no such volume on company law.

Company law has escaped attention probably for a simple reason: it is widely understood to be a creature of statute law. This is owing to the prevalence of codes, codifying acts and legislation. The Companies Act of 2006 is a monumental piece of legislative work. Cases, however, played a central role in creating, establishing and influencing legal ideas that were later enshrined within pieces of legislation. Indeed, the key principles and rules in company law can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This formative period is often seen as a fulcrum for modern company law with the rise in enterprise, share ownership and insolvency proceedings. The emergence of big business in the twentieth century too resulted in fundamental changes in structure of socio-economic relations. Doctrines, which emerged during this timeframe, continue to have influence in the present, but their origins in case law have hitherto been understudied.

This book aims to uncover and reveal overlooked but inspirational landmark cases in company law. It redresses the imbalance, and the secondary role assigned to case law, in our understanding of company law. An exercise in unearthing landmark cases can thus be fruitful for a number of reasons. It can shed some much needed light on how, why and when rules came into being (or not). A novel account of company law, using the ‘law in context’ method, can be informative. This contextual analysis is missing from the original law reports as well as the legislation that we see in operation today. A simple read of these sources will only explain the rules themselves. The academic scholarship contained in the chapters within this volume informs and adds to these primary legal resources.

The chapters push beyond a simplistic account of the case that you might see in a textbook or the secondary literature explaining what the law is (or was). These chapters proffer an explanation for why legal rules took the shape that they did. As well as the context, chapters will also reveal new factual details through archival research. These archaeological analyses also provide an account of the case in greater detail. Such an excavation may inform the reader about legal advisors or the parties in the suit to explain why the litigation arose in this particular way, manner or form. It may also provide insights into why the judges took the view that they did in this case. Drawing on a range of diverse methods and interdisciplinary orientation, these chapters provide some much needed contextualisation, which helps to explain the past, present and future of company law as well as its shape, structure and trajectory.

a) Explaining the Company

b) Shareholders As Between Themselves

c) Protecting the Minority

d) Way Directors Act

e) Financing the Company

[1] See Jonathan Herring and Jesse Wall (eds), Landmark Cases in Medical Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2015); Shaun D Pattinson, Revisiting Landmark Cases in Medical Law (Routledge 2018). Interestingly, the editors of the volume on criminal law decided not to include a chapter on R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) because they felt that Brian Simpson has done it so well in his monograph, nothing new could be added. See Philip Handler, Henry Mares and Ian Williams, ‘Introduction’ in Philip Handler, Henry Mares and Ian Williams (eds), Landmark Cases in Criminal Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017) 2.

[2] Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell (eds), Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (Bloomsbury Publishing 2006); Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell (eds), Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (Bloomsbury Publishing 2008); Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell (eds), Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort (Bloomsbury Publishing 2010); Stephen Gilmore, Jonathan Herring and Rebecca Probert (eds), Landmark Cases in Family Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2011); Nigel Gravells (ed), Landmark Cases in Land Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2013); Simon Douglas, Robin Hickey and Emma Waring (eds), Landmark Cases in Property Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2015); Herring and Wall (n 1); Jose Bellido (ed), Landmark Cases in Intellectual Property Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017); Eirik Bjorge and Cameron Miles (eds), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017); Philip Handler, Henry Mares and Ian Williams (eds), Landmark Cases in Criminal Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017); Satvinder Juss and Maurice Sunkin (eds), Landmark Cases in Public Law (Bloomsbury Publishing 2017).

The Global Corporate Law brings together those exploring the company regulation from around the globe. In the present era of de-globalisation, policy-makers have been either slow, reluctant or unwilling to recognise the importance of global exchanges. Following the disruption to supply chains in the wake of Brexit and now the conflict in Ukraine, there is now widespread acknowledgement that commerce is global in nature. Yet, the international commercial exchanges are not themselves new. Companies have long looked to new markets to expand and entrepreneurs have built new customer bases overseas since time immemorial. Traders have often sought finance, agents or intermediaries to facilitate the sale of goods. Law, of course, influences the terms of commercial transactions at all levels.

Corporate Law

Will the real shareholder primacy please stand up.

Ann M. Lipton

In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litigation

Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal for Shareholders Seeking Appraisal in Merger with Preclosing Dividend.

Public Reporting of Monitorship Outcomes

Veronica Root Martinez

Extraterritorial Avoidance Actions Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code

The supreme court and the pro-business paradox.

Elizabeth Pollman

The (Indigenous) Case for Shareholder Primacy and its Role in Climate Justice

Carla F. Fredericks

Rethinking Retirement Savings

Jason Fernandes
Janelle Orsi

Controller Confusion: Realigning Controlling Stockholders and Controlled Boards

Flood v. synutra international, inc..

MFW Conditions Are in Place “Before Any Substantive Economic Negotiations” in Controlling Shareholder Transactions.

Deal Process Design in Management Buyouts

Guhan Subramanian

Commercial Law

Case Studies in a Business Context

Desmond Painter 0

Dorset Institute of Higher Education, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

507 Accesses

Table of contents

About this book

Authors and affiliations, bibliographic information.

Publish with us

Buying options

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check for access.

Table of contents (6 chapters)

Front matter, introduction summary of case-study contents summary of legal topics, introduction.

Desmond Painter

Summary of Case-study Contents

Summary of legal topics.

Case Studies

Introduction to the Notes

Notes on each case study.

business law
commercial law

Book Title : Commercial Law

Book Subtitle : Case Studies in a Business Context

Authors : Desmond Painter

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09263-5

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection , Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Softcover ISBN : 978-0-333-43466-6 Published: 18 June 1988

eBook ISBN : 978-1-349-09263-5 Published: 18 June 1988

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : X, 154

Topics : Commercial Law , Business and Management, general

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Hertz CEO Kathryn Marinello with CFO Jamere Jackson and other members of the executive team in 2017

Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies of 2021

Two cases about Hertz claimed top spots in 2021's Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies

Two cases on the uses of debt and equity at Hertz claimed top spots in the CRDT’s (Case Research and Development Team) 2021 top 40 review of cases.

Hertz (A) took the top spot. The case details the financial structure of the rental car company through the end of 2019. Hertz (B), which ranked third in CRDT’s list, describes the company’s struggles during the early part of the COVID pandemic and its eventual need to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The success of the Hertz cases was unprecedented for the top 40 list. Usually, cases take a number of years to gain popularity, but the Hertz cases claimed top spots in their first year of release. Hertz (A) also became the first ‘cooked’ case to top the annual review, as all of the other winners had been web-based ‘raw’ cases.

Besides introducing students to the complicated financing required to maintain an enormous fleet of cars, the Hertz cases also expanded the diversity of case protagonists. Kathyrn Marinello was the CEO of Hertz during this period and the CFO, Jamere Jackson is black.

Sandwiched between the two Hertz cases, Coffee 2016, a perennial best seller, finished second. “Glory, Glory, Man United!” a case about an English football team’s IPO made a surprise move to number four. Cases on search fund boards, the future of malls, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth fund, Prodigy Finance, the Mayo Clinic, and Cadbury rounded out the top ten.

Other year-end data for 2021 showed:

Online “raw” case usage remained steady as compared to 2020 with over 35K users from 170 countries and all 50 U.S. states interacting with 196 cases.
Fifty four percent of raw case users came from outside the U.S..
The Yale School of Management (SOM) case study directory pages received over 160K page views from 177 countries with approximately a third originating in India followed by the U.S. and the Philippines.
Twenty-six of the cases in the list are raw cases.
A third of the cases feature a woman protagonist.
Orders for Yale SOM case studies increased by almost 50% compared to 2020.
The top 40 cases were supervised by 19 different Yale SOM faculty members, several supervising multiple cases.

CRDT compiled the Top 40 list by combining data from its case store, Google Analytics, and other measures of interest and adoption.

All of this year’s Top 40 cases are available for purchase from the Yale Management Media store .

And the Top 40 cases studies of 2021 are:

1. Hertz Global Holdings (A): Uses of Debt and Equity

2. Coffee 2016

3. Hertz Global Holdings (B): Uses of Debt and Equity 2020

4. Glory, Glory Man United!

5. Search Fund Company Boards: How CEOs Can Build Boards to Help Them Thrive

6. The Future of Malls: Was Decline Inevitable?

7. Strategy for Norway's Pension Fund Global

8. Prodigy Finance

9. Design at Mayo

10. Cadbury

11. City Hospital Emergency Room

13. Volkswagen

14. Marina Bay Sands

15. Shake Shack IPO

16. Mastercard

17. Netflix

18. Ant Financial

19. AXA: Creating the New CR Metrics

20. IBM Corporate Service Corps

21. Business Leadership in South Africa's 1994 Reforms

22. Alternative Meat Industry

23. Children's Premier

24. Khalil Tawil and Umi (A)

25. Palm Oil 2016

26. Teach For All: Designing a Global Network

27. What's Next? Search Fund Entrepreneurs Reflect on Life After Exit

28. Searching for a Search Fund Structure: A Student Takes a Tour of Various Options

30. Project Sammaan

31. Commonfund ESG

32. Polaroid

33. Connecticut Green Bank 2018: After the Raid

34. FieldFresh Foods

35. The Alibaba Group

36. 360 State Street: Real Options

37. Herman Miller

38. AgBiome

39. Nathan Cummings Foundation

40. Toyota 2010

Company Law - Notes, Case Laws and Study Material

This course consists of 5 modules that cover a range of topics from the salient features of the companies act to various doctrines and tribunals..

The history of Indian Company Law began with the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1850 . Thereafter, a cumulative process of amendment and consolidation brought us to the most comprehensive and complicated piece of legislation, the Companies Act, 1956 . As of today, the Companies Act, 2013 has replaced the Companies Act, 1956. The new Act has 470 sections and 7 schedules as against 658 sections and 15 schedules in the 1956 Act.

This course consists of 5 modules that cover a range of topics from the salient features of the Companies Act to various doctrines and Tribunals. To help readers get an in-depth understanding of Indian Company Law, we have also provided well-researched and analytical articles on miscellaneous subjects towards the end of the course.

Important articles and study material on Company Law – Click on the links to Read:

A Comparative Analysis of the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and Companies Act, 2013
Introduction to Company Law: Meaning, Nature, and Characteristics
Salomon v. A Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897)
Companies Act 2013 – Bare Act
Types of Company
Comparison of a Company with a Partnership firm and an LLP
Formation of a Company under the Companies Act, 2013
Disadvantages of Incorporation of a Company
A Comprehensive Analysis of Section 9 of the Companies Act, 2013
Case Study: Foss v Harbottle (1843)
Promoters of a Company
Memorandum of Association (MoA)
Articles of Association: Meaning, Nature, and Explanation
Doctrine of Ultra Vires in Company Law
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: A Comprehensive Analysis
Doctrine of Indoor Management in Company Law
Prospectus of the Company
Meetings under the Companies Act of 2013
Shares, Share Capital, and Debentures: Explained
Winding Up of Companies
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
Write Short notes on Share Warrant.
Write Short notes on Share Certificate.

Company Law Mains Questions-Answer Series: Important Questions for Judiciary Exams

Company Law Mains Question Series Part I
Company Law Mains Question Series Part III
Company Law Mains Question Series Part IV

Company Law Mains Question Series Part V

Your valuable feedback in the form of comments or any desired inputs are encouraged and always welcome. Every contribution toward a goal is valuable, regardless of how small it may be.

Admin Legal Bites

Legal Bites Study Materials correspond to what is taught in law schools and what is tested in competitive exams. It pledges to offer a competitive advantage, prepare for tests, and save a lot of money.

Company law case studies for CA/CS/CMA examinations

“Unlock insights into Company Law with these CA/CS/CMA case studies. Explore scenarios like subsidiary acquisition, pre-incorporation contracts, and conversion into a private company. Prepare effectively for examinations with real-world applications and strategic solutions.”

Q 1 Masons (Pvt.) Ltd. is a private limited company as per the articles of association of the company. However, a public company acquired shares in Masons (Pvt.) Ltd. Thereby making the company, Masons (Pvt.) Ltd., a subsidiary of that public company. State the impact of such acquisition of shares by a public company on Masons (Pvt.) Ltd

Q 2 Based on the information given in the memorandum of association, Smart Ltd. Was incorporated and the certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. The memorandum of association was duly signed, except that X, Y and Z signed it on behalf of five minors. Examine the validity of the certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies [hint : certificate is valid, moosa goolam ariff vs ebrahim goolam ariff]

Q 3 Good Homes Ltd. was registered as a public company with 205 members as follows :

No. of members

Board of directors of the company takes a decision to convert the company into a private company. Being a legal advisor, the Board of directors seeks your advice about the steps to be taken for conversion of the company into a private company including reduction in the number of members, if necessary, as per the Companies Act, 2013. Advise the Board. [hint : no reduction required]

Q 4 A group of persons, called promoters have submitted an application to the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi for getting a company incorporated as a public company. Pending the Registrar’s decision of granting certificate of incorporation, the promoters enter into certain contracts for the purchase of some assets for the proposed company. Explain the legal position of promoters’ liability and the liability of the proposed company after its incorporation, in this regard. [hint : pre incorporation contracts]

Q 5 Kamal, the promoter of Desire Ltd., has incurred 1 lakh for formation of the company.The company refuses to pay all the expenses so incurred by Kamal since the company does not have any provision in the Articles of Association for such payment. Advise Kamal regarding the remedy available to him for his claim

Q 6 ABC Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. The paid-up share capital of the company is held as under :

Explaining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, state whether the said company be called a ‘Government company’ and also state whether the employees of a Government company can claim their salaries from the Government of India [hint : govt co, can’t claim from GOI]

BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDIT

Q 1 Mr shyam is a small shareholder of ABC LIMITED and after that he was appointed as the small shareholder director ABC LIMITED and as on 1 aug 2016 went to company to inspect the books of accounts but accounts manager object that he can’t inspect because it is prejudicial to the interest of company if Mr shaym would be allowed to inspect. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 whether Mr shyam has a power to inspect ? [ hint : sec 209(3) of co act 2013, director has a power to inspect ]

Q 2 District court pass an order to recasting the books of accounts of the pasco india limited on the application filled by the income tax department and company raised objection that district court doesn’t have a power to pass such type of order, clarify as per provisions of companies act? [ hint : district court doesn’t have a power to recast the account, NCLT have a power to recast ]

Q 3 Board of director of ITC LTD has approved the financial statement on which Mr sumit has signed as chairman, for which is no authorization has been received by the BOD for signed, ROC issued the show cause notice to the company why penalty under sec 134(8) shall not to be imposed. Explain the action of ROC is tenable under law ? [ hint : yes, penalty can be imposed ]

Q 4 financial statement of ITC LTD specified that net worth of the company for the FY ended 31 march 2016 600 crore, company wants to spend in the financial year 16-17 in Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, information in regards of profits of all preceding 3 financial years are as under :-

BOD didn’t specified in board report about the amount and details of expenditure in CSR policy explain as per provisions of companies act, 2013 [ hint : Rs 2.5 crore and required to disclose otherwise liable to impose penalty ]

Q 5 Prism Ltd. has accepted Rs10 lakh as advance towards the supply of goods to certain parties. As per the agreement, the company will supply the goods after two years from the date of deposit. Later on, internal auditors qualified their report on the ground that the company has violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Directors explained that this is required to complete the order. Examining the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 state whether the explanation given by the directors is justified [ hint: not justified, consider as deposit otherwise punishable with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees but which may extend to ten crore rupees ]

Q 6 Karnataka bank limited engaged in the business of banking provides a loan to the one of its director i.e. mukesh, amount Rs 20 crore as on 10 sep 2016 for it statutory auditor made an objection that it is violated the provision of companies act and BOD REQUIRED to give explanation on it. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [hint: banking company can give a loan to director, sec 185]

Q7 on examination of books of accounts of DLF LTD Statutory auditor specify in the audit report that there is likely an amount of Rs 1 crore but BOD has not provided any explanations in the board report about the such fraud, BOD contented that it is not actual figure it is an expected figure. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [hint: mandatory to explain]

Q8 Mr krishnamurty, statutory auditor of the coca cola (india) pvt ltd, has attend the EGM of the company, for which company didn’t made any notice to the auditor, company has made objection that mandatory to issue notice only in case of annual general meeting. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 statutory auditor can attend meeting without receiving a notice? [hint: can attend]

Q 1 ABC pvt ltd has equity paid up share capital amount of Rs 40 lacs and preference paid up share capital Rs 30 lacs and the turnover for the period ended 31 march 2016 Rs 2.5 crore

Explain whether there is a mandatory to convert in to public company or private company ? and time required for conversion ? [ hint: yes and in 6 months i.e. 30 sep 2016 ]

Q 2 ABC pvt ltd has equity paid up share capital amount of Rs 40 lacs and preference paid up share capital Rs 30 lacs and the turnover for the period ended 31 march 2016 Rs 2.5 crore

If within 6 months conversion will not be made whether company liable to struck off, explain the consequences? [ hint: no, One Person Company or any officer of the One Person Company shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day ]

Q 1 jaypee industries ltd made a public issue amount of Rs 100 crore and received an application money amount Rs 10 crore as on 1 jan 2016 and company unable to made allotment, due to strike made by the employees of merchant bankers, upto 31 jan and company made an refund 2 april 2016.CFO contended that required to show the amount in the as a deposit. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [ hint : considered as deposits ]

Q 2 pioneer Ltd. has accepted Rs10 lakh as advance towards sale of land . As per the agreement, the company will transfer the possession of land after two years from the date of deposit. Later on, internal auditors qualified their report on the ground that the company has violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Directors explained that this is required to complete the order. Examining the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 state whether the explanation given by the directors is justified [ hint: not consider as deposit ]

Q3 pioneer Ltd. , is an eligible company, has accepted Rs10 lakh as deposit for a term 24 months from member as on 1 april 2016 financial statements provided the following information for the year ended 31 march 2016 as as under

Examine the validity of amount of deposit took by the company ? [hint: deposit up to 9.5 lacs is valid]

Q 1 Mr suresh applied for 4,000 shares in a company i.e. JAR aluminum ltd but no allotment was made to him. Subsequently 4,000 shares were transferred to him without his request and his name was entered in the register of members. He knew it but took no steps for rectification of the register of members. The company went into liquidation and he was held liable as a contributory, explain [ hint : liable for contribution ]

APPLICATION OF COMPANY LAW TO DIFFERENT SECTORS

Q 1 Section 129 (1) states that the financial statements shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company or companies, comply with the accounting standards notified under section 133 but ICICI bank denies to follow that such provisions shall not apply on it. explain ? [ hint: view of icici bank is correct ]

DEBT CAPITAL

Q 1 SAHARA investment limited issued a debenture on private placement basis amount if Rs 100 crore on which 5% issued to the promoter i.e. subrata roy sahara with a specific rights of voting in general meeting, one of the shareholder objected that such type of issue against the law, company contended that objection is valid if such type of issue made to outsider, explain the validity of objection [ hint : no company shall issue any debentures carrying any voting rights ]

Q 2 Alok, the Managing Director of Yellow Ltd., borrowed a large sum of money and misappropriated the same. Later, when the lender demanded his money, the company refused to repay, contending that the money borrowed by Managing Director was misappropriated by him and the company is not liable for repayment. Decide, giving reasons, whether the lender would succeed in recovering the money from the company

Q 3 Board of directors of Joy Ltd., by a resolution passed at its meeting, decide to provide a loan of 50 crore to Happy Ltd. The paid-up share capital of Joy Ltd. on the date of resolution was 100 crore and the aggregate balance in the free reserves and securities premium account stood at 40 crore. Examining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, decide whether the Board’s resolution to provide a loan of 50 crore to Happy Ltd. is valid [hint: valid ]

Q 4 Board of directors of Prince Ltd. decides to go for the issue of secured debentures of Rs100 each, to the extent of Rs 10 crore. Further, as the company is going for the issue of secured debentures, it is required to create a debenture redemption reserve. The Board seeks your advice on the conditions to be fulfilled and compliance of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Advise the Board

Q 5 Manohar Motors Ltd. has a paid-up share capital of Rs 10 crore and free reserves of Rs 5 crore. The Board of directors want to borrow a sum of Rs 20 crore for its long-term capital requirements from the market.

Discuss whether they can do so and if yes, what are the requirements under the Companies Act, 2013 which they have to comply with

Q 6 Board of directors of sultan Ltd., by a resolution passed at its meeting, decide to provide a loan of 50 crore to jayshree Ltd. Information in regards of sultan limited are as under for the year ended 31 march 2017

Examining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, decide whether the Board’s resolution to provide a loan of 50 crore to jayshree Ltd. is valid [hint: valid]

Q 7 Manohar Motors Ltd. provides Information for the year ended 31 march 2017

company decide to take a loan amount of Rs 90 crore from ICICI BANK. Examining the validity of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 [ hint : upto 80 crore BOD pass a resolution, for excess required to pass special resolution ]

Q 8 jaypee industries ltd made a public issue amount of Rs 100 crore and received an application money amount Rs 10 crore as on 1 jan 2016 and company unable to made allotment, due to strike made by the employees of merchant bankers, upto 31 jan and company made an refund 2 april 2016.CFO contended that required to show the amount in the as a deposit. Explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [ hint : considered as deposits ]

Q 9 pioneer Ltd. has accepted Rs10 lakh as advance towards sale of land . As per the agreement, the company will transfer the possession of land after two years from the date of deposit. Later on, internal auditors qualified their report on the ground that the company has violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Directors explained that this is required to complete the order. Examining the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 state whether the explanation given by the directors is justified [ hint: not consider as deposit ]

Q 10 pioneer Ltd. , is an eligible company, has accepted Rs10 lakh as deposit for a term 24 months from member as on 1 april 2016 financial statements provided the following information for the year ended 31 march 2016 as as under

Q11 PQR pvt Ltd. has accepted Rs10 lakh as deposit for a term 24 months from member as on 1 april 2016 financial statements provided the following information for the year ended 31 march 2016 as as under

Examine the validity of amount of deposit took by the company ? [hint: deposit up to 95 lacs is valid]

Q 12 Ajay Ltd. had given a loan of Rs 10 crore to Binoy Ltd. and created a charge on the assets of the company. But Binoy Ltd. failed to register the charge within the stipulated time. Can Ajay Ltd. register the charge with the Registrar of Companies ? If yes, what shall be the procedure ? [ hint: can register it ]

SMALL SHAREHOLDER DIRECTOR

Q 1 Infosys ltd has listed the BSE has total number of registered shareholder are 36 thousands out of which 1244 are such shareholder who acquire the equity shares 1800 each per person nominal value per share Rs10, having market value 120 per share in BSE, ROC objected that company is required to appoint a small shareholder director, explain as per provision of companies act, 2013, there is mandatory to appoint small shareholder director ?

Q 2 Infosys ltd has listed the BSE has total number of registered shareholder are 36 thousands out of which 1244 are such shareholder who acquire the preference shares 1800 each per person nominal value per share Rs10, having market value 120 per share in BSE, ROC objected that company is required to appoint a small shareholder director, explain as per provision of companies act, 2013, there is mandatory to oppoint small shareholder director and company objected mandatory to appoint, when small shareholder, who acquired equity share of the company exceeded 1000. Explain

Q 3 Infosys ltd has listed the BSE has total number of registered shareholder are 36 thousands out of which 1244 are such shareholder who acquire the preference shares 1800 each per person nominal value per share Rs10, having market value 120 per share in BSE, all small shareholder made a notice to company for appointment of Mr A as a small shareholder director, who didn’t purchased any share in the company, whether Mr A can appoint as a small share holder director

APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR

Q 4 wipro ltd has no provision in AOA for the appointment of director 5 subscriber become the director of a company but another 2 didn’t want to become a director Mr rohan the company secretary of the company specify that subscribers to the memorandum who are individuals shall be deemed to be the first directors of the company until the directors are duly appointed, it is mandatory that all subscriber shall be consider as director. Clarify contention of Mr rohan is correct as per provision of companies act 2013

Q 5 Mr ram file the application for the allotment of DIN as on 1 july 2016 in meanwhile TCS limited has passed a resolution in the extra ordinary general meeting as on 27 july 2016 for Mr ram appointed as director on the basis of application number generated after filing of application. ROC made an objection for such appointment that on the basis of application number no individual can be appointed as a director as per sec 152(2) appointment of director, whether contention of ROC tenable as per law? Clarify

Q 6 bharat electronics LIMITED which is wholly owned by the central govt in which half director in the BOD are rotational director ROC OBJECTED that minimum 2/3 of total director require to be rotational.Mr B, CS in practice, objected that provision of sec 152(6) shall not apply to government company. Clarify

DISQUALIFICATION OF DIRECTOR

Q 7 bharat electronics LIMITED which is wholly owned by the central govt in the company when Mr ram has a director financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years i.e. 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Mr ram are going to be appointed as director in reliance industries limited for it resolution has been passed in 30 sep 2015.ROC objected that appointment against the provisions of sec 164(2)? Clarify

Q 8 reliance industries ltd, in the company when Mr ram has a director financial statements or annual returns for any continuous period of three financial years i.e. 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 Mr ram are going to be appointed as director in IRCTC limited for it resolution has been passed in 30 sep 2015.ROC objected that appointment against the provisions of sec 164(2)? Clarify

Q 9 Reliance Clothing India Private Limited is a subsidiary of reliance industries limited has made an additional ground of disqualification of director that director should be post graduate, small shareholder are going to appoint a representative, i.e. Mr harish , of small shareholder in BOD but who is only a graduate, whether he can be appointed as director ? clarify as per provisions of companies act 2013

SECRETARIAL AUDIT

Q 10 ABC LTD listed in the BSE having the equity paid capital Rs 30 crore and preference paid up capital Rs25 crore.it has not annexed the secretarial audit report with board report because of non conduct of such audit. ROC objected that mandatory to conduct and file the secretarial audit. Explain as per provision of companies act 2013

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Q 11 ABC LTD having the equity paid capital Rs 6 crore and preference paid up capital Rs 3 crore as on 31 march 2016 audited financial statement and first quarter for the FY 16-17 ended 30 june 2016 unaudited financial statement provides that equity paid capital Rs 6 crore and preference paid up capital Rs 4 crore (incl 1 cr through private placement basis).whether BOD of the company are mandatory to constitute the audit committee. Explain with reasons

CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL PARTY

Q 12 reliance jio telecommunication ltd contributed to own formed the People’s Electoral Trust and claim deduction 1 crore in FY 16-17 on the basis of information of last preceding financial year profit are as under 13-14 Rs 10 crore, 14-15 Rs 20 cr and 15-16 Rs 20 cr. ROC objected on the basis of information that company can’t claim deduction for own formed electoral trust, explain as per provision of companies act 2013

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION

Q 13 Infosys (india) LTD having made a sale to Infosys china, NR narayanmurti, who is the promoter of Infosys india,has acquired the equity share 2%, amount of Rs 31 crore in the financial year 16-17 without confirmation in general meeting and turnover of the Infosys (india) ltd for the FY 16-17 300 CRORE. Whether it is covered under related party transaction u/s 188? Explain

Q 14 rohit murty, son of NR narayanmurti, who is the promoter of Infosys india,appointed as chief financial officer in the financial year 16-17 for a salary amount of Rs 2.6 lacs month, whether rohit murty can be appointed as CFO with such remuneration, explain as per provision of companies act 2013

Q 1 Due to inadequacy of profits, the Board of directors of Rise Ltd. decided not to recommend any dividend for the financial year ended 31stMarch, 2015.Certain shareholders of the company complained to the Company Law Board/Tribunal regarding mismanagement of the affairs of the company, since the Board of the company did not recommend any dividend. Explaining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013,examine whether the contention of the shareholders is tenable. [ hint : not consider mismanagement ]

Q 2 BOD OF reliance industries ltd has passed a resolution to declare an interim dividend during the financial year 16-17 as on 30 sep 2016 @ 120% of the face value of the share i.e. Rs 10 but before payment of dividend BOD rescind the such resolution i.e. 16 oct 2016, on it shareholders made an objection that after passing a resolution of dividend it is a debt against the company, company can’t rescind after that. Explain [ hint : VAZIR SULTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD vs CIT 1981, not a debt to the company ]

Q 3 RR METALS limited has no profits in the financial year for the year ended 31march 2017, for declaring a dividend company made a public issue amount of Rs 1 crore out of which 70 lacs has been utilised for the payment of dividend for such financial year, statutory auditor made an objection it is not tenable in law, clarify as per provisions of companies act 2013 [ hint: it is not tenable in law as per sec 123(1) ]

Q 4 RR METALS limited has no profits in the financial year for the year ended 31march 2017, for declaring a dividend company intended to utilize the amount of general reserve, information are as under

Company declared the dividend for the FY 2015-16- 50%, 14-15 70% & 13-14 90%. Advise the company maximum amount can be utilised for payment of dividend to equity shareholder as per provisions of companies act, 2013[ hint : Rs 140 lacs ]

Q 5 In Evergreen Ltd., the Board of directors declared an interim dividend but could not distribute the dividend due to objections of audit committee that the accounts considered by the Board were false; and true financial results were inflated by not incorporating outstanding liabilities and over-valuation of inventories. A shareholder filed a suit for non-payment of dividend. One of the directors contended that he never attended the Board meeting where the issue relating to payment of interim dividend was declared on the basis of false accounts. Discuss about the validity of contention of the director [ hint : VAZIR SULTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD vs CIT 1981, not a debt to the company ]

GENERAL MEETING

Q 1 Infosys ltd has not hold its AGM for the financial year ended 31 march 2017, one of the member of the company who holds 15% voting power in the company has filled the petition in front of company law tribunal in regards of holding a AGM, RESPONDENT i.e. Infosys objected that member doesn’t have a power to compel only the ROC has the power. Explain as per provision of companies act 2013 [hint : sec 97 : any member can filled to hold AGM]

Q 2 Infosys ltd has not hold its AGM for the financial year ended 31 march 2017, one of the member of the company who holds 1% voting power in the company has filled the petition in front of company law tribunal in regards of holding a AGM, RESPONDENT i.e. Infosys objected that member holding below 10% voting power can’t enforce. Explain as per provision of companies act 2013 [hint : sec 97 : any member can filled to hold AGM]

Q 3 Infosys ltd has not hold its AGM for the financial year ended 31 march 2017, one of the creditor of the company has filled the petition in front of company law tribunal in regards of holding a AGM, RESPONDENT i.e. Infosys objected that creditor can’t Explain as per provision of companies act 2013 [hint : sec 97 : any member can filled to hold AGM]

Q 4 AOA of Infosys ltd specify that power to call AGM are on the BOD of the company and member holds 10% or more voting power in the company, one of the member filled petition to tribunal for call AGM and tribunal pass order, company challenge that only authorized person who specified in the AOA can only call AGM, YOU are the legal advisor advise on such matter. [hint : sec 97 : notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the articles of the company, any member can filled to hold AGM]

Q 5 Infosys ltd has not hold its AGM for the financial year ended 31 march 2017, one of the member of the company who holds 1% voting power in the company has filled the petition in front of company law tribunal in regards of holding a AGM, RESPONDENT i.e. Infosys hold AGM as per direction of tribunal, ROC objected that meeting for the financial year 16-17 has not been held by the company. Explain as per provision of companies act 2013 [hint : sec 97(3): Agm As Per direction of the tribunal deemed to be an annual general meeting of the company]

Q 6 Bright Products Ltd. wishes to sell one of its undertakings for which it decides to call an extra-ordinary general meeting (EGM) and to pass a resolution thereat. State the material facts to be set out in the explanatory statement to be annexed to the notice of the EGM on this special business to be transacted at the meeting. [hint : matter to be stated in explanatory statement in case of selling of undertaking]

Q 7 Pioneer Fisheries Ltd. has borrowed an amount of Rs 50 crore from a financial institution. The annual general meeting of the company was held on 1st September, 2015.Examining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, state as to who will sign and certify the annual return while filing the same with the Registrar of Companies after the annual general meeting. [hint : signed by a director and the company secretary, or where there is no company secretary, by a company secretary in practice ]

Q 8 Pioneer Fisheries pvt. Ltd. has turnover for the financial year ended 15-16 Rs 1.2 cr. The annual general meeting of the company was held on 1st September, 2016.Examining the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, state as to who will sign and certify the annual return while filing the same with the Registrar of Companies after the annual general meeting [hint: incase of small company, shall be signed by the company secretary, or where there is no company secretary, by the director of the company]

Inspection and investigation

Q 1 Sudarsan Trading Co. Ltd. is a company mainly transacting non-banking financial business, the Joint Director, Inspection issue notice of examination of books of accounts of the company and the mail which has interchanged between the director group of the company, because it is relevant, company objected on examination of letter, explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [hint : C.V. Karuppunni And Ors. vs Joint Director, contention of company is correct]

Q 2 Sudarsan Trading Co. Ltd. is a company mainly transacting non-banking financial business, the Joint Director, Inspection issue notice that “you are hereby required personally to attend at the office of the Regional Director 14th may 2016 at 11 am to produce either personally or through an authorized representative the books of account or other documents specified overleaf and not to depart until you receive my permission to do so”, company object that it is not open for department to call books of accounts in his office, explain ? [hint: it is within power of department to call records in his office]

Q 3 Search and seizure conducted by the inspecting officer in pioneer company limited with the permission of central govt but for seizure conducted without the permission of special court, such company made an objection that serach conducted by the inspecting officer is against the law, explain as per provisions of companies act 2013 [ hint : seizure may be conducted after obtaining an order from the Special Court ]

Q 4 Inspecting officer i.e. Mr ravinder seize the books of accounts after conducting the search as on 1 july 2016 in the amtee properties limited and such books of accounts had not been returned by Mr ravinder upto 31 dec 2016, company made an objected that it is holding more than authorized period as specified by the law, whether contention of company is correct [ hint: sec 209(2): inspector shall return the books and papers seized in any case not later than 180 days after such seizure]

Q 5 144 members holding 9% paid up share capital of the ABC limited has apply to the tribunal of investigate the affairs of the company, company object that minimum holder of 10% paid up share capital shall required to apply for investigate the affairs of the company, explain whether the contention [ hint: sec 213: member can apply to tribunal ]

Q 6 Investigating officer i.e. Mr ravinder appoints to examine the affairs of the ABC limited, wants to examine the papers related to group of suppliers, which are in under possession of Mr sohan Sharma, who is the former employee of the company, whether Mr ravinder succeed to examine the documents explain? [ hint : sec 217 : can examine the documents ]

Q 7 During the pendency of the investigating process the company pass the special resolution to winding up the company, for which company deny to provide the some documents because of process of winding up has been initiated, whether investigating officer can examine the documents after commencement of winding up process?

MEMBERSHIP IN A COMPANY

Q 1 Mr. sohan is the one of the subscriber of the MOA, of the interior investment ltd, out of the 7 subscriber but his name is not mentioned in the register of member of the company at the time of declaring the dividend company had not declared the dividend after arguing that Mr is not the registered shareholder of the company, explain as per provisions of the companies act 2013 [ hint: subscriber is the member, mandatory to distribute the dividend ]

Q 2 Mrs sujata holds 52% equity share capital in the DEF ltd, which is registered under ROC Mumbai, remaining shareholding acquire by the 48 shareholders, every member holds 1% share in the company and 20 member resides delhi and decides to registers of member required to be maintained in delhi Mrs sujata object that it is against the law to maintain the register other than place of registered office, explain [ hint: after passing a special resolution can maintain any other place in india, where more than 1/10 member resides, proviso of sec 94(1) ]

Q 3 icici bank lend a loan to NTPC ltd amount of Rs 150 crore, after making a public issue share certificate has been allotted by the company and for which representatives of icici bank went to such company for examination of register of member nut the company made objection only security holder has as right to inspect, whether contention of company is as per law, clarify as per provisions of companies act 2013[ hint: any other person can inspect the register on payment of the requisite fee ]

Q 4 Satish, outsider, who is not a member of dayal Ltd., wants to inspect the register of deposits maintained by the company as required under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The company refused to provide the register for inspection without assigning any reason. Referring to the provisions of the Act, examine the validity of the company’s refusal [ hint : any other person can inspect the register on payment of the requisite fee ]

Q 5 Mr suresh applied for 4,000 shares in a company i.e. JAR aluminum ltd but no allotment was made to him. Subsequently 4,000 shares were transferred to him without his request and his name was entered in the register of members. He knew it but took no steps for rectification of the register of members. The company went into liquidation and he was held liable as a contributory, explain [ hint : liable for contribution ]

Q 6 Satish, legal heirs, son of deceased member i.e. Mr sagar of dayal Ltd. wants to inspect the register of deposits maintained by the company as required under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The company refused to provide the register for inspection without assigning any reason. Referring to the provisions of the Act, examine the validity of the company’s refusal [ hint: shares transmitted to satish, he become member, he can inspect the register ]

Q 1 Reliance industries limited has listed in Bombay stock exchange and its subsidiary Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited which has a paid share capital 4 crore as on the 31 march 2017 for the financial year 16-17, explain as per provision of companies act 2013 whether for Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited is a mandatory to file financial statements in XBRL taxonomy [ hint : yes ]

Q 2 Reliance industries limited has listed in Bombay stock exchange and its associate Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Limited which has a paid share capital 4 crore as on the 31 march 2017 for the financial year 16-17, explain as per provision of companies act 2013 whether for Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Limited is a mandatory to file financial statements in XBRL taxonomy [ hint: no ]

Q 3 In relation to filing of financial statements of a company in XBRL mode and by usingthe XBRL taxonomy, decide whether the following companies are required to file the financial statements in the said mode :

(i) Grand , the subsidiary company of Tiny Ltd. which is listed at Kolkata Stock Exchange. [ hint : yes ]

(ii) Prime, a company which has paid-up share capital of Rs 100 crore. [ hint : yes ]

(iii) Crafty , a company which has a turnover of Rs 400 crore. [ hint : yes ]

(iv) Comfort , a non-banking financial company [ hint: no ]

For Any Query/ Solutions Contact : CA Amit Aggarwal Ashwini Commerce Paradise U-87, Ground Floor, Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Gate 3, Shakarpur, Delhi 92 9643547868, 9210617186

« Previous Article
Next Article »

Name: CA AMIT AGGARWAL

Qualification: ca in practice, company: ashwini commerce paradise limited, location: new delhi, in, member since: 27 apr 2017 | total posts: 2, my published posts, join taxguru’s network for latest updates on income tax, gst, company law, corporate laws and other related subjects..

Join Our whatsApp Channel
Join Our Telegram Group

14 Comments

Help me with the Debt capital question no.1(SAHARA)

Mr suresh applied for 4,000 shares in a company i.e. JAR aluminum ltd but no allotment was made to him. Subsequently 4,000 shares were transferred to him without his request and his name was entered in the register of members. He knew it but took no steps for rectification of the register of members. The company went into liquidation and he was held liable as a contributory, explain

I need all answers

Q 3 Good Homes Ltd. was registered as a public company with 205 members as follows : No. of members Directors and their relatives 45 Employees 12 Ex-employees 08 (shares were allotted when they were employees) Others 140 Total number of members 205 Board of directors of the company takes a decision to convert the company into a private company. Being a legal advisor, the Board of directors seeks your advice about the steps to be taken for conversion of the company into a private company including reduction in the number of members, if necessary, as per the Companies Act, 2013. Advise the Board.[hint : no reduction required] i want this answer..

financial statement of ITC LTD specified that net worth of the company for the FY ended 31 march 2016 600 crore, company wants to spend in the financial year 16-17 in Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, information in regards of profits of all preceding 3 financial years are as under :- 15-16Rs 100 crore14-15Rs 160 crore13-14Rs 120 crore BOD didn’t specified in board report about the amount and details of expenditure in CSR policy explain as per provisions of companies act, 2013 [hint : Rs 2.5 crore and required to disclose otherwise liable to impose penalty ]

Please share the answers.

Kindly provide solutions for all the case studies

wipro ltd has no provision in AOA for the appointment of director 5 subscriber become the director of a company but another 2 didn’t want to become a director Mr rohan the company secretary of the company specify that subscribers to the memorandum who are individuals shall be deemed to be the first directors of the company until the directors are duly appointed, it is mandatory that all subscriber shall be consider as director. Clarify contention of Mr rohan is correct as per provision of companies act 2013 I want solution of this.

I need solutions.

I want this answer asap

I need solution also

I want solution of this case study

here is only questions i need the answer also.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Comment

Notice: It seems you have Javascript disabled in your Browser. In order to submit a comment to this post, please write this code along with your comment: 540d77d4f8896a4d8b7df0771faa3dfb

Subscribe to Our Daily Newsletter

Delhi HC directs 5% IGST rate on Dialysis Machine Imports

Bombay HC Directs Disciplinary Action Against AO for 6-Year Delay in Rectification Order

Delhi HC Modifies Order as No Opportunity Given for GST Registration Cancellation

Alleged Failure by GST Auditor: HC Grants Opportunity to Contest Tax Demand

HC Sets Aside ITC Denial for Non-Submitted Documents which were not asked to submit

Kerala HC Directs Disposal of CGST Rectification Application

Resolution Applicant Can’t Withdraw or Modify Plan After Creditor Committee Approval: SC

GST SCN uploaded under ‘additional notices’ instead of ‘Notices’ section: HC Quashed order

HC quashed order for not considering reply submitted just before expiration of limitation period

Delhi HC Directs Manpowergroup to Respond to ITC Availment Discrepancies SCN

What’s new in section 115BAC: Optional scheme to default scheme of taxation

CBIC extends due date of furnishing GSTR-1 for March 2024 to 12th April

Representation on deficiency in GST Portal functioning

GST recommends Extension of GSTR-1 due date to 12th April 2024

For Tax Filing – Analyze the Old and New Tax Regime

Auto-populate HSN-wise summary from e-Invoices into Table 12 of GSTR-1

Advisory on Reset and Re-filing of GSTR-3B of some taxpayers

CBDT Clarifies on Misleading Reports on HRA Claims

Financial Year end GST Checkpoints

Representation on Incorrect/Delay In Submitting Application U/S 12A(1)(ac)

--> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

Sabrineh Ardalan
Robert Bordone
Robert Clark
John Coates
Susan Crawford
Alonzo Emery
Heidi Gardner
Philip B. Heymann
Howell E. Jackson
Wendy Jacobs
Adriaan Lanni
Jeremy McClane
Naz Modirzadeh
Catherine Mondell
Ashish Nanda
Charles R. Nesson
John Palfrey
Bruce Patton
Todd D. Rakoff
Lisa Rohrer
Jeswald W. Salacuse
James Sebenius
Joseph William Singer
Holger Spamann
Carol Steiker
Guhan Subramanian
Lawrence Susskind
David B. Wilkins
Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

Howell Jackson

Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
Chad M. Carr
John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
View all Brands

Free Materials

Published Old-New
Published New-Old

Investor Access to Private Investment

Hannah Valentine under the supervision of Howell Jackson

First National Bank of Ames Corporation

Share-Inn Economy: Student Materials

Emily M. Broad Leib, Jude Lee, Amy Hoover & Rachel Gordon

Share-Inn Economy: Teaching Note

“Home canned crushed tomatoes” by Susy Morris is licensed under (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Share-Inn Economy (C)

Emily M. Broad Leib, Jude Lee & Amy Hoover

Share-Inn Economy (A)

phone with "robo advisors" written on screen

Robo Advising

Ryan Chan-Wei HLS LLM '19 under the supervision of Howell Jackson

Fintech Charter

Margaret Tahyar, Madison Roberts, and Carol Rodrigues of Davis Polk & Wardwell, with the assistance of Professor Howell E. Jackson

Strategic Options and Legal Risks for Elite ReFi, Inc.

Margaret Tahyar, Jai Massari, Madison Roberts, and Adam Fovent of Davis Polk & Wardwell, with the assistance of Professor Howell E. Jackson

Civilian Protection in Partnered Conflicts

Dustin A. Lewis, Naz K. Modirzadeh, C. Danae Paterson, Lisa Brem

OUR Walmart

Sharon Block, Lisa Brem, and Brittany Deitch

Worker Centers

Exercise on Alternative Strategies for Depository Institutions

Sanctuary Cities

Brittany Deitch and Lisa Brem, under the supervision of Sabrineh Ardalan

Wells Fargo Corporate Governance

Ed Stein under the supervision of Howell Jackson

Anti-Money Laundering and Blockchain Technology

Dylan M. Aluise under the supervision of Howell Jackson

The Future of Affiliate Transaction Restrictions for Banks and the Federal Reserve’s Emergency Intervention Authority

Margaret Tahyar and Howell Jackson

Closed-End Fund Regulation

Daniel Wertman under the Supervision of Howell Jackson

Unidentified Financial Institutions

Howell Jackson and Peter Tufano with assistance from Andrea Ryan

Asset Securitization, Marketplace Lending, and the Future After the Madden Decision

Cordray speaking on behalf of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Responding to the PHH Litigation

Ryan M. Johansen under the supervision of Howell Jackson

close-up of a 20-dollar bill and Benjamin Franklin's face

Wal-Mart and Banking

Joshua Cutler under the supervision of Howell Jackson

Lending Club: 2008

Anooshree Sinha and Corrine Snow under the supervision of Howell Jackson

Ames’ Auto Insurance Regulations — Racial Disparities in Insurance Premiums

calculator, expense sheet, and pen on a desk

Federal Preemption of State Consumer Protection Laws: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Dodd-Frank Act Implementation Rules

Melanie Berdecia and Dylan Aluise under supervision of Howell Jackson

The OCC’s FinTech Charter: Testing the Scope of the OCC’s Chartering Powers

Lotus v. Borland: A Case Study in Software Copyright

Ben Sobel, under the supervision of Jonathan Zittrain

The Color of Police Action in these United States

Saptarishi Bandopadhyay, under supervision of Charles R. Nesson

The Decriminalization of Marijuana in Jamaica: A Key Step toward International Legalization?

Thinking Big: Bringing Big Sport's Energy and Innovation to Education

Elizabeth Moroney, under supervision of Charles R. Nesson

poster of Snowden partially removed on telephone post

The Snowden Effect

Anastasia Tolu, under supervision of Charles R. Nesson

The Art of Deliberation

Algorithmic Allegories (version 1.0)

Marcus Comiter, Ben Sobel, and Jonathan Zittrain

Somalia in Crisis: Famine, Counterterrorism, & Humanitarian Aid | Part B2: The NGO General Counsel Dilemma

Naz K. Modirzadeh, Dustin A. Lewis, and Molly R. Gray, with Lisa Brem

Somalia in Crisis: Famine, Counterterrorism, & Humanitarian Aid | Part B1: The National Security Council Dilemma

Somalia in Crisis: Famine, Counterterrorism, & Humanitarian Aid | Part A: General Background Document

magnifying glass magnifies the word copyright

What’s Fair about Fair Use? The Battle over E-Reserves at GSU (B)

Elizabeth Moroney, under the supervision of Kyle Courtney and William Fisher

1's and 0's on a black background with silver sphere

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (B)

Elizabeth Moroney, under the supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

magnifying glass magnifies the word copyright in a dictionary

What’s Fair about Fair Use? The Battle over E-Reserves at GSU (A)

The Battle for Unocal

Holger Spamann, Amanda Ravich, and Lisa Brem

strings of 1's and 0's with a grey sphere and black background

Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging and Plea Bargaining: The Aaron Swartz Case (A)

Elizabeth Moroney, under supervision of Adriaan Lanni and Carol Steiker

Sue the Consumer: Digital Copyright in the New Millennium

Charles Nesson and Sarah Jeong

MOOCs and Consequences for the Future of Education

Jeffrey R. Young and Charles Nesson

In the Stadium and in the Street: The Brazil Soccer Riots

Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Howell Jackson and Kelley O'Mara

Ching Pow: Far East Yardies!!

Charles Nesson and Saptarishi Bandopadhyay

From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide

John Palfrey, Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lisa Brem

Game Changers: Mobile Gaming Apps and Data Privacy

Susan Crawford, Jonathan Zittrain and Lisa Brem

The Smart Grid

Sonia McNeil, with Paul Kominers, J. Palfrey and J. Zittrain

multi-panel code on black backlit computer screen

The WikiLeaks Incident: Background, Details, and Resources

Alan Ezekiel, under supervision of John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain

Drafting an IP Strategy at MNC (C): New Puzzles

John Palfrey and Lisa Brem

Drafting an IP Strategy at MNC (B): Getting Started

Drafting an IP Strategy at MNC (A)

How to Approach a Case Study in a Problem Solving Workshop

Famous Cases under Company Law

Landmark cases under company law, salomon v salomon & co. ltd[1], royal british bank v turquand[2], cyrus investments pvt. ltd. & anr. v. tata sons ltd.& ors[3], tata consultancy services limited v. cyrus investments pvt. ltd.[4], ak bindal vs union of india[5], sri gopal jalan & co. v. calcutta stock exchange association ltd[6], seth mohan lal v. grain chambers ltd[7], shanti prasad jain v. kalinga tubes ltd[8], recent cases under companies act, 2013.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/landmark-judgments-of-corporate-law-13988.asp
https://www.mondaq.com/india/shareholders/1077784/some-recent-trends-in-oppression-mismanagement-cases-under-the-companies-act-2013
https://www.studocu.com/in/document/guru-nanak-dev-university/bachelor-of-law/sp-jain-vs-kaliga-ltd-case-law-of-company-law/16610619
UKHL 1, AC 22
6 E&B 327
2017 SCC OnLine NCLAT 261
2017 SCC Online SC 272
(2003) 5 SCC 163
1964 AIR 250
1968 AIR 772
AIR 1965 SC 1535
2021 SCC OnLine NCLAT 123
Company Appeal (AT) No. 25 of 2018
Civil Appeal No. 9340 of 2019
Company Appeal (AT) 389 of 2018
Company Appeal (AT) 190 of 2019

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Comprehensive analysis of C...

New Government Laws Shaping...

Cultural and Educational Ri...

Challenges in Execution of ...

Contract of Pledge: A Legal...

Examining The Role Of Shell...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics

Announcements
AUTHOR'S GUIDELINES

Balance of Interests as a Principle of Civil Law: Some Aspects of Legal Consciousness

Yury Alexandrovich SVIRIN Department Civil Procedural Law and Bailiff Organization Department, All-Russian State University of Justice, Moscow, Russian Federation
Vladimir Viktorovich KULAKOV Department of Civil Law, Russian State University of Justice, Moscow, Russia Federation
Alexandr Anatolievich MOKHOV Kutafin Moscow State Law University, Moscov, Russian Federation
Sergej Nikolaevich SHESTOV Institute of Economics and Law, Academy of Labor and Social Relations, Sevastopol, Russian Federation
Vladislav Petrovich SOROKIN Department of Civil Law and Process Ows, Academy of Labour and Social Relations, Moscow, Russian Federation

The research considers the category of reasonable balance of interests in the context of civil relations. The authors of the article highlight the need to restrict permissibility as a method of civil regulation aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the weaker party in some legal relations. A reasonable balance of interests is ensured by laws and agreements, whose conditions become the subject of a judicial dispute in the absence of a mandatory rule. The authors have analyzed judicial acts conditioned by the need to maintain a reasonable balance of interests. As a result, they have determined that the first condition for applying the fair balance principle is the equivalence of counter-performance in the absence of both excessive benefits and excessive losses for the parties. The second condition is the party-related division in some civil relations. The authors have concluded that the risks of negative consequences should not be borne only by the weaker party if the latter could not reasonably foresee the consequences upon concluding the relevant agreement. Methods. The study is based on the comparative analysis of the Russian scientific doctrine and judicial practice. The main approach to the analysis of the legal tools in question is the method of system analysis. In addition, the authors used the structural-functional method and general scientific methods of cognition. The study aims at determining the principle of a reasonable balance of interests in civil law, its essence, necessity and expediency in the system of law enforcement. The authors aim to define conditions for applying legal norms to achieve a reasonable balance of interests among all parties in disputed legal relations. Results. The study results let the authors claim that the risks of negative consequences should not be borne only by the weaker party if it could not reasonably foresee such consequences upon concluding the agreement and the imbalance of interests among parties in civil-legal relations is caused by the violation by one or another party of the principles of fair practice and reasonableness . Although a reasonable balance of interests is a counterweight to the principles of contractual freedom and free will, courts should apply it to ensure the right of justice.

EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows)
ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows)
Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only)

The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher) This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors. The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.

Come and join our team! become an author
Soon, we launch the books app stay tune!
Online support 24/7 +4077 033 6758
Tell Friends and get $5 a small gift for you
Privacy Policy
Customer Service
Refunds Politics

Mail to: [email protected]

Phone: +40754 027 417

IMAGES

Business law case studies by Alley John
Business Law Answers To Questions And Case Problems
How To Answer Case Study Questions In Business Law
31+ Case Study Samples
Company Law Case Study @Myassignmenthelp.com
Business Law Case Studies with Solutions by Professional

VIDEO

Introduction to Company Law Part 02
Company law case study Revision#2
Commercial and Company Law case study-group presentation
CASE STUDY PRACTICE LECTURE 2
Doctrine of Indore Management
CASE STUDY PRACTICE LECTURE 3

COMMENTS

PDF Case Studies and Case Snippets
COMPANY LAW 1. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed the claims of grandchildren of late Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur over the ownership of the Jai Mahal hotel, in the matter of Jai Mahal Hotels Private Limited Vs. Rajkumar Devraj & ors., Company Appeal (AT) No. 270, 271 and 329 of 2018, dated March 12, 2020. 2.
Important caselaws on Company law Leading Cases on Company Law
A Company is a "legal person" or "legal entity" separate from and capable of surviving beyond the lives of, its members. 2. The company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or Trustee for them. 3. Saloman was entitled to £ 6,000 as the company was an entirely separate person from Saloman. 4.
Salomon v Salomon
A Case Summary of Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (Salomon v Salomon) - Separate Legal Personality (SLP) is the basic tenet on which company law is premised. LawTeacher Free law study resources
Important caselaws on Company law
Judgment-. 1. A Company is a "legal person" or "legal entity" separate from and capable of surviving beyond the lives of, its members. 2. The company is not in law the agent of the subscribers or Trustee for them. 3. Saloman was entitled to 6,000 as the company was an entirely separate person from Saloman. 4.
PDF Company Law
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME - COMPANY LAW This study material is divided into three parts with following weightage of marks: Part I - Company Law, Principles & Concepts (50 Marks) ... Global Trends and Developments in Company Law. Case Laws, Case Studies and Practical Aspects. Part II: Company Administration and Meetings - Law and Practices (40 ...
Landmark Cases in Company Law
This book aims to uncover and reveal overlooked but inspirational landmark cases in company law. It redresses the imbalance, and the secondary role assigned to case law, in our understanding of company law. An exercise in unearthing landmark cases can thus be fruitful for a number of reasons. It can shed some much needed light on how, why and ...
Corporate Law
Rethinking Retirement Savings. Vol. 134 No. 6 April 2021 At the end of 2020, Americans held a collective $35 trillion in their retirement accounts. To put this in perspective, $35 trillion is larger... Jason Fernandes. Janelle Orsi. Corporate Law Note.
Company Law: Case Studies in a Business Context
A set of twenty problems in company law. The loose-leaf case study pages are licensed for bona fide lecturers to photocopy for assignment and seminar use. Full lecturers notes are provided showing how the cases can be fully updated in practical, activity-based study.
"Share Capital : Exploring the backbone of Company Law"
Articles of the company. Share capital refers to the funds a company receives from selling ownership shares to the p ublic. A company that issues 1,000 shares of stock at $50 per share receives $5 ...
Commercial Law: Case Studies in a Business Context
About this book. This pack of lecturer, photocopiable, material is designed to provide sets of authentic case studies to illustrate a variety of aspects of Company Business Law. It consists of a collection of 19 individual scenarios, each of which is introduced and has a variety of tasks attached. Back to top.
Harvard Law School
The Case Study Teaching Method; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Blog; Shop By Category; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Program; Role Play; Workshop-Based Case Study; Discussion-Based Case Study; DVD; Subject; Sabrineh Ardalan; Sharon Block; Robert Bordone; Emily M. Broad Leib; Chad Carr; Robert Clark; John Coates ...
COMPANY LAW CASE LAWS- 2020 & 2021
CASE LAWS- 2020 & 2021. PART I: Company Law. CL 1. ARUNA OSWAL V. PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS [SC] Provision Involved: According to Section 72 of the Companies Act, 2013 every holder of securities has a right to nominate any person to whom his securities shall "vest" in the event of his death.
Company Law Landmark Cases
Facts of the Case. The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("NCLT") handed down a significant ruling in the case of Cyrus Investments Private Limited & Others ("Petitioners") v. Tata Sons Limited & Others1 ("Respondents") on oppression and mismanagement under the company law regime.
Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies of 2021
Two cases on the uses of debt and equity at Hertz claimed top spots in the CRDT's (Case Research and Development Team) 2021 top 40 review of cases. Hertz (A) took the top spot. The case details the financial structure of the rental car company through the end of 2019.
PDF Companycompany Lawllaawwlaw
STUDY MATERIAL EXECUTIVE PROGRAMME COMPANYCOMPANY LAWLLAAWWLAW PAPER 1 ICSI House, 22, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003 tel 011-4534 1000, 4150 4444 fax +91-11-2462 6727 email [email protected] website www.icsi.edu
Company Law
The history of Indian Company Law began with the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1850. Thereafter, a cumulative process of amendment and consolidation brought us to the most comprehensive and complicated piece of legislation, the Companies Act, 1956. As of today, the Companies Act, 2013 has replaced the Companies Act, 1956.
Company law case studies for CA/CS/CMA examinations
Author Bio. Unlock insights into Company Law with these CA/CS/CMA case studies. Explore scenarios like subsidiary acquisition, pre-incorporation contracts, and conversion into a private company. Prepare effectively for examinations with real-world applications and strategic solutions.
Free Materials
The Case Study Teaching Method; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Blog; Shop By Category; Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z; Free Materials; Program; Role Play; Workshop-Based Case Study; Discussion-Based Case Study; DVD; Subject; Sabrineh Ardalan; Sharon Block; Robert Bordone; Emily M. Broad Leib; Chad Carr; Robert Clark; John Coates ...
McDonald's In Moscow
McDonald's In Mexico - McDonald's FOOD CHAIN ,the case discusses about the challenge faced by McDonald in moscow,McDonald's wanted the taste of the Big Mac to be the same in Moscow as it had in New York,Paris or sydney also wantingbto secure its food products locally,McDonalds planned the supply chain for the moscow restaurant,when it experts began to work with the people of Russia in order to ...
The Principles of Justice in International Law
Background/Objectives. The article is devoted to the principles of law governing the organization of judicial proceedings in international law. There are a number of principles of justice, such as the rule of law, the independence of judges, the reasonable period of proceedings, counterclaim, publicity, and others. This article covers not all, but some of them, which, in the authors' opinion ...
International Law School
The International Law School, one of the most prestigious schools of MGIMO, was founded in 1949. ... Since inception the Law School has developed a focus on the comparative study of legal systems of foreign states, especially in the field of international political and economic relations. ... White & Case, Baker & McKenzie and others. Dean ...
Famous Cases under Company Law
Facts of the Case. The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("NCLT") handed down a significant ruling in the case of Cyrus Investments Private Limited & Others ("Petitioners") v. Tata Sons Limited & Others1 ("Respondents") on oppression and mismanagement under the company law regime.
Balance of Interests as a Principle of Civil Law: Some Aspects of Legal
The research considers the category of reasonable balance of interests in the context of civil relations. The authors of the article highlight the need to restrict permissibility as a method of civil regulation aimed at protecting the rights and interests of the weaker party in some legal relations. A reasonable balance of interests is ensured by laws and agreements, whose conditions become ...