Posts

Showing posts with the label Doctrine of ultra vires

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
Read more

Re Introductions, Ltd. Introductions, Ltd. v. National Provincial Bank Ltd. [1969]

By
Image
Re Introductions, Ltd. Introductions, Ltd. v. National Provincial Bank Ltd. [1969] Case Summary Introduction  A bank with full knowledge of the objects and power mentioned in the MoA of a company provided a sum of credit. On a simple reading of the clause of MoA, the bank satisfied itself that the company is empowered to borrow but they further did not enquire and provide credit to the company. The Court observed that the clauses of the MoA based on which the bank gave the loan were not an object but only a power, and that should be used for the particular purpose or object mentioned in the MoA. The power to borrow can not be an object of a company. Facts   The appellant company was incorporated in 1951 to provide facilities for British festivals to people who come from abroad. Subsequently, for some years, the company connected its business with deck chairs at a seaside resort. In 1961 the company transferred its share and elected a new board who decided to be involved in the
Post a Comment
Read more

In re (Jon) Beuforte (London) Ltd. (1953)

By
Image
Introduction This case is related to the "Doctrine of Ultra vires" which states that a company cannot perform act beyond the scope of its stated objects in the "Memorandum of Association".  Facts   A company was authorized by the memorandum to carry on the business of costumiers, gown making, and other activities ejusdem generis  (of the same kind). The company decided to undertake the business of making veneered panels and for this purpose, the company made three contracts with  Grainger Smith & Co. (Builders) Ld. to construct a factory. John Wright & Sons (Veneers) Ld. to supply veneers Lowell Baldwin Ld. to supply coke The three creditors filed a suit in court when their demand for respective payments failed. The company consented, in court, to pay them in different installments. But again the company failed to pay. Later when the company went on to liquidation, all three creditors filed their proof to recover their respective payments. The li
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more