Posts

Showing posts with the label With Concept (Separate Legal Entity)

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Ltd. (1897)

Image
Salomon & Salomon Co. Ltd. || Case Summary  Introduction   This case is mainly concerned with the "Independent legal personality" or "Separate legal entity" of the company. The facts of the case  The appellant, Aron Salomon, carrying on a business as a leather merchant and boot manufacturer, formed a company named "Salomon and Co. Ltd"  to carry on the business. The subscribers to the memorandum of the association were the appellant, his wife, daughter, and four sons. The nominal capital of the company was £40,000 of which 20,007 shares were issued, the appellant had 20,001 shares and other subscribers had one share each. Salomon sold his business to the newly formed company "Salomon and Co. Ltd." for £38,782. In return, the Company paid the appellant £6,000 in cash and £10,000 in debenture as decided by the directors of the company consisting of the appellant and his two sons. In 1893 an order was made to wind up the company. As it was indeb
Post a Comment
Read more