Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878)

By

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. [1878]




Introduction

  • This case is related to Section 2(69) which deals with the promoters of a company. 



Fact

The appellant along with one 'Thomas Westall' wanted to buy the lease of the island of West Indies, from the official liquidator of the company named "Old Sombrero Ltd." For this purpose, they formed a syndicate and the members of syndicate purchased the lease of the island from the official liquidator for £ 55,000, later on syndicate formed Joint Stock Company to resell this island for £110,000 which might afford them profit.

The director of the company was directly or indirectly connected with members of syndicate. The directors were empowered to adopt and carry into effect the contract for the assignment of the Island of Sombrero.

In the first general meeting, without any inquiry into facts and figures the sell of island was ratified.

After a time the company was wound up and as per the advice of counsel, Committee appointed to investigate the matter of the purchase.

Therefore , After the report shareholders of the company "New Sombrero phosphate Co. Ltd." filed case against against the appellant and demanded for the share of profit from the promoters who had re-sold the island in double amount to the company without disclosing information to them.

Issue 

Q. 1. Whether the duty was fulfilled by the promoters in the present case.

Ratio Decidendi 

  • As per section 2(69) of the company's act: 'promoter' means a person :

(b) who has control over the affairs of the company, directly or indirectly.

(c) in accordance with whose direction or instructions the Board of Director act, except the person who is acting merely in a professional capacity.

' Lord Cairns J' observation 

  • A promoter stands in a fiduciary position in respect of the company.
  • Promoters are the creator and moulder of the company. They have power to define how, when and in what shape company should be in existence.
  • Promoters shall provide an executive to the company in the form of Board of Directors which shall be competent and impartial in deciding purchase of the property of the promoter.
  • Owner of a property may form a company and sell his property to it but through an independent and impartial Board of Directors.
  • If Board of Directors will be very connected with the promoter, than they will become incapable of taking right decision. In the present case, the directors were connected with the syndicate members directly or indirectly, who wished to sell the island to the company.
  • It was the duty of the promoters to take care that the contract for the purchase of their property was submitted to the independent director.
  • The contract ratified by only 3 out of 5 directors of which two were already in the syndicate, in addition of the solicitor who was also a member of the syndicate.
  • Appointment of directors afforded no protection to the company since all, except one, of them were already influenced by the syndicate.
  • As per LORD 'O' HAGAN : The Original  purchase of island was perfectly legitimate, the object of the purchaser was to sell it again by forming a company by which they might also get profit on the transaction, but the privilege given to them for promoting such a company for such object involves the utmost faith, the complete truthfulness, and a care regard to the protection of the future shareholder. 

Judgment 

  • Promoter failed to realise their fiduciary position and fullfill their duties.
  • Therefore the promoter has to share the profit with the shareholder, which has taken by selling island to the company.
  • Appeal Dismissed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more