Advertisement
1 / 7

DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT


  • 360 Views
  • Uploaded On 28-02-2012

TITLE:LEGAL ASPECT OF BUSINESS C.NO. 103. DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT. ORIGIN. ROYAL BRITISH BANK Vs TURQUAND (1856) FACTS OF THE CASE ARE: The Articles empowered the Directors to borrow money provided they were authorized by a Resolution passed at the General Meeting of the Co.

Presentation posted in : General

Download Presentation

DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.












- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Presentation Transcript


Doctrine of indoor management l.jpg

TITLE:LEGAL ASPECT OF BUSINESSC.NO. 103

DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT


Origin l.jpg

ORIGIN

ROYAL BRITISH BANK

Vs

TURQUAND

(1856)

  • FACTS OF THE CASE ARE:

    The Articles empowered the Directors to borrow money provided they were authorized by a Resolution passed at the General Meeting of the Co.

  • POINT DECIDED IS:

    The outsiders dealing with the Co. are entitled to presume that as far as the internal management of the Co. is concerned, everything has been regularly done.


Doctrine of indoor management is also known as rule in royal british bank vs turquand l.jpg

“DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT” is also known as “ RULE IN ROYAL BRITISH BANK Vs TURQUAND”


Doctrine of indoor management4 l.jpg

DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT

LORD HATHERLEY:

“Persons transacting business with the Co. are deemed to have notice of what they would have discovered by making a search at the office of the Registrar of Co.’s, and they would be stopped from asserting that they had not read the documents. But such persons are not deemed to have notice of, nor are they under a duty to inquire into the internal proceedings of a Co. . Thus an outsider is presumed to know the Constitution of a Co., but not what may or may not have taken place within the doors that are closed to him.”


Exceptions to the doctrine of indoor management l.jpg

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF INDOOR MANAGEMENT

  • KNOWLEDGE OF IRREGULARITY

  • NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE OUTSIDER

  • FORGERY

  • NO KNOWLEDGE OF ARTICLES

  • ACTS OUTSIDE APPARENT AUTHORITY


Ruben vs great fingall ltd l.jpg

RUBENVsGREAT FINGALL Ltd.

LORD LOREBURNobserved of the case:

“It is quite true that persons dealing with limited liability Co.’s are not bound to inquire into their indoor mgt. & will not be affected by irregularities of which they have no notice. But this doctrine, which is well established, applies only to irregularities that otherwise might affect a genuine transaction. It can’t apply to a FORGERY”.


Anand bihari lal vs dinshaw co l.jpg

ANAND BIHARI LALVs.DINSHAW & Co.