Test Your Knowledge - The Companies Act, 2013 | Business Laws for CA Foundation PDF Download

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE

Multiple Choice Questions

1. Maximum number of members under a private company as provided under the Companies Act, 2013.

(a) 50

(b) 150

(c) 200

(d) No limit

2. Document that regulates the management of internal   affairs of a company are-

(a) Memorandum of Association

(b) Prospectus

(c) Article of Association

(d) Certificate of incorporation

3. Under the Companies Act, 2013, “ Significant   influence” constitutes how much % of total share capital or of business decisions under an agreement?

(a) At least 2%

(b) At least 2.5%

(c) At least 10%

(d) At least 20%

4. A Private Company which is subsidiary of a Public Company is treated as-

(a) Public Company

(b) Private Company

(c) Holding Company

(d) Family Company

5. Which one of the following is not the content of the Memorandum of Association?

(a) Name clause

(b) Registered   office clause

(c) Objects clause

(d) Board of Directors clause.

6. An Act is said to be ultra vires a company when it is beyond the powers.

(a) Of the Company

(b) Of the Directors

(c) Of the Directors but not the company

(d) Conferred on the company by the Articles of Association.

7. Turquand Rule is related to:

(a) Doctrine of ultra vires

(b) Doctrine of constructive notice

(c) Doctrine of indoor management

(d) Doctrine of subrogation

8. The minimum number of members in a private company and public company are

(a) Three and Seven respectively

(b) Two and seven respectively

(c) Two and nine respectively
(d) None of the above

Answers to MCQs

1 (c)
2 (c)
3 (d)
4 (a)
5 (d)
6 (a)
7 (c)

8 (b)

Theoretical Questions Question

Question 1:

What is meant by a Guarantee Company? State the similarities and dissimilarities between a Guarantee Company and a Company having Share Capital.

Question 2:

Can a non-profit organization be registered as a company under the Companies Act, 2013? If so, what procedure does it have to adopt?

Question 3:

Briefly explain the doctrine of “ultravires” under the Companies Act, 2013. What are the consequences of ultravires acts of the company?

Question 4:

Explain clearly the doctrine of ‘Indoor Management’ as applicable in cases of companies registered under the Companies Act, 2013. Explain the circumstances in which an outsider dealing with the company cannot claim any relief on the ground of ‘Indoor Management’.

Answer to Theoretical Questions

1. Company limited by guarantee: Section 2(21) of the Companies Act, 2013   defines it as the company having the liability of its members limited by the memorandum to such amount as the members may respectively undertake by the memorandum to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up. Thus, the liability of the member of a guarantee company is limited upto a stipulated sum mentioned in the memorandum. Members cannot be called upon to contribute beyond that stipulated sum.

Similarities and dis-similarities between the Guarantee Company and the Company having share capital:

The common features between a ‘guarantee company’ and ‘share company’ are legal personality and limited liability. In the latter case, the member’s liability is limited by the amount remaining unpaid on the share, which each member holds. Both of them have to state in their memorandum that the members’ liability is limited.

However, the point of distinction between these two types of companies is that in the former case the members may be called upon to discharge their liability only after commencement of the winding up and only subject to certain conditions; but in the latter case, they may be called upon to do so at any time, either during the company’s life-time or during its winding up.

2. Yes, a non-profit organization be registered as a company under the Companies Act, 2013 by following the provisions of section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with the formation of companies which are formed to-

• promote the charitable objects of commerce, art, science, sports, education, research, social welfare, religion, charity, protection of environment etc.

Such company intends to apply its profit in

• promoting its objects and

• prohibiting the payment of any dividend to its members.

The Central Government has the power to issue license for registering a section 8 company.

(i) Section 8 allows the Central Government to register such person or association of persons as a company with limited liability without the addition of words ‘Limited’ or ‘Private limited’ to its name, by issuing licence on such conditions as it deems fit.

(ii) The registrar shall on application register such person or association of persons as a company under this section.

(iii) On registration the company shall enjoy same privileges and obligations as of a limited company.

3. Doctrine of ultra vires: The meaning of the term ultra vires is simply “beyond (their) powers”. The legal phrase “ultra vires” is applicable only to acts done in excess of the legal powers of the doers. This presupposes that the powers are in their nature limited. To an ordinary citizen, the law permits whatever does the law not expressly forbid.
It is a fundamental rule of Company Law that the objects of a company as stated in its memorandum can be departed from only to the extent permitted by the Act - thus far and no further [Ashbury Railway Company Ltd. vs. Riche]. In consequence, any act done or a contract made by the company which travels beyond the powers not only of the directors but also of the company is wholly void and inoperative in law and is therefore not binding on the company. On this account, a company can be restrained from employing its fund for purposes other than those sanctioned by the memorandum. Likewise, it can be restrained from carrying on a trade different from the one it is authorised to carry on.

The impact of the doctrine of ultra vires is that a company can neither be sued on an ultra vires transaction, nor can it sue on it. Since the memorandum is a “public document”, it is open to public inspection. Therefore, when one deals with a company one is deemed to know about the powers of the company. If in spite of this you enter into a transaction which is ultra vires the company, you cannot enforce it against the company.

For example, if you have supplied goods or performed service on such a contract or lent money, you cannot obtain payment or recover the money lent. But if the money advanced to the company has not been expended, the lender may stop the company from parting with it by means of an injunction; this is because the company does not become the owner of the money, which is ultra vires the company. As the lender remains the owner, he can take back the property in specie. If the ultra vires loan has been utilised in meeting lawful debt of the company then the lender steps into the shoes of the debtor paid off and consequently he would be entitled to recover his loan to that extent from the company.

An act which is ultra vires the company being void, cannot be ratified by the shareholders of the company.

Sometimes, act which is ultra vires can be regularised by ratifying it subsequently. For instance, if the act is ultra vires the power of the directors, the shareholders can ratify it; if it is ultra vires the articles of the company, the company can alter the articles; if the act is within the power of the company but is done irregularly, shareholder can validate it.

4. Doctrine of Indoor Management (the Companies Act, 2013): According to the “doctrine of indoor management” the outsiders, dealing with the company though are supposed to have   satisfied themselves regarding the competence of the company to enter into the proposed contracts are also entitled to assume that as far as the internal compliance to procedures and regulations by the company is concerned, everything has been done properly. They are bound to examine the registered documents of the company and ensure that the proposed dealing is not inconsistent therewith, but they are not bound to do more. They are fully entitled to presume regularity and compliance by the company with the internal procedures as required by the Memorandum and the Articles. This doctrine is a limitation of the doctrine of “constructive notice” and popularly known as the rule laid down in the celebrated case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand. Thus, the doctrine of indoor management aims to protect outsiders against the company.

The above mentioned doctrine of Indoor Management or Turquand Rule has limitations of its own. That is to say, it is inapplicable to the following cases, namely:

(a) Actual or constructive knowledge of irregularity: The rule does not protect any person when the person dealing with the company has notice, whether actual or constructive, of the irregularity.

In Howard vs. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co. where the directors could not defend the issue of debentures to themselves because they should have known that the extent to which they were lending money to the company required the assent of the general meeting which they had not obtained.

Likewise, in Morris v Kansseen, a director could not defend an allotment of shares to him as he participated in the meeting, which made the allotment. His appointment as a director also fell through because none of the directors appointed him was validly in office.

(b) Suspicion of Irregularity: The doctrine in no way, rewards those who behave negligently. Where the person dealing with the company is put upon an inquiry, for example, where the transaction is unusual or not in the ordinary course of business, it is the duty of the outsider to make the necessary enquiry.

The protection of the “Turquand Rule” is also not available where the circumstances surrounding the contract are suspicious and therefore invite inquiry. Suspicion should arise, for example, from the fact that an officer is purporting to act in matter, which is apparently outside the scope of his authority.

Where, for example, as in the case of Anand Bihari Lal vs. Dinshaw & Co. the plaintiff accepted a transfer of a company’s property from its accountant, the transfer was held void. The plaintiff could not have supposed, in absence of a power of attorney that the accountant had authority to effect transfer of the company’s property.

Similarly, in the case of Haughton & Co. v. Nothard, Lowe & Wills Ltd. where a person holding directorship in two companies agreed to apply the money of one company in payment of the debt to other, the court said that it was something so unusual “that the   plaintiff were put upon inquiry to ascertain whether the persons making the contract had any authority in fact to make it.” Any other rule would “place limited companies without any suffcient reasons for so doing, at the mercy of any servant or agent who should purport to contract on their behalf.”

(c) Forgery: The doctrine of indoor management applies only to irregularities which might otherwise affect a transaction but it cannot apply to forgery which must be regarded as nullity.

Forgery may in circumstances exclude the ‘Turquand Rule’. The only clear illustration is found in the Ruben v Great Fingall Consolidated. In this case the plaintiff was the transferee of a share certificate issued under the seal of the defendant’s company. The company’s secretary, who had affixed the seal of the company and forged the signature of the two directors, issued the certificate.

The plaintiff contended that whether the signature were genuine or forged was apart of the internal management, and therefore, the company should be estopped from denying genuineness of the document. But it was held, that the rule has never been extended to cover such a complete forgery.