Posts

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

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

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

By
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