Case List: Articles of Association vs. Shareholders Agreements – Which one prevails?

ByVivek Kumar Verma
Section 36 of the Companies Act, 1956 makes the Memorandum and Articles of Company, when registered, binding not only on the company but also the members inter-se to the same extent as if they had been signed by the company and by each member and covenanted to by the company and each shareholder to observe all the provisions of the Memorandum and of the Articles. The Articles of Association constitute a contract not merely between the shareholders and the company but between the individual shareholders also. The Articles are a source of powers of the Directors who can as a result exercise only those powers conferred by the Articles in accordance therewith. Any action referable to the Articles and contrary thereto would be ultra vires.

Case List

  • Smt. Claude-Lila Parulekar vs. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2005, Supreme Court; (2005)11SCC73
  • L. Chandramurthy vs. Pearl Metal Products Private Limited and Ors., 2008, CLB; [2009]149CompCas291(CLB)
  • AIDQUA Holdings (Mauritius) Inc. vs. Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company Ltd.,2014, Madras High Court; (2014)4MLJ429

Similar Posts

State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Navir Singh and Anr.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Navir Singh and Anr. AND State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Pagro Foods Ltd. and Ors. Before: Supreme Court of India Date of Judgment: October 7, 2013 Facts: The facts in both the cases being similar, these cases were heard jointly by the Court. Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) sanctioned…

|

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas 1966 AIR 543 (S.3 and 4, place of formation of contract, postal rule) FACTS: Plaintiff offered to get certain goods supplied at Ahmedabad to defendants who accepted the offer at Khamgaon. On defendants’ failure to supply requisite goods, plaintiff sued them at Ahmedabad. Dispute arose as to where…

|

GREEV vs. KETTLE

ByVivek Kumar Verma

GREEV vs. KETTLE Key Words: mutual mistake in guarantee, estoppel, rectification Facts: Defendant Company (S), in consideration of Plaintiff Company’s (C) giving credit to principle debtor (D), guaranteed the payment of debt, which was stated in deed to be secured by ‘validly issued shares in Company’. Though both S and C believed this fact to…

IN RE Tecumseh Products India Private Ltd.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

CITATION: 82 (1999) DLT 518 DECIDED on: 13.08.1999 FACTS In this case a Company Petition was filed by M/s. Tecumseh India Private Limited (“Transferee Company”) seeking amalgamation of M/s. Tecumseh Products India Limited (“Transferor Company”) with the Transferee Company. Both the Transferor and Transferee Company belonged to same group. The scheme of amalgamation provided that all…

| |

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection

ByAnkit Rastogi

World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection Before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi FAO(OS) No. 506 of 2013 Date of Decision: 15.10.2014 Appellant filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Copyright, Infringement of Trade Mark, Passing Off, Dilution, Rendition of Accounts, Damages, etc in respect of their Trade…

Shri V.S. Krishnan & Ors vs M/S Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Shri V.S. Krishnan & Ors vs M/S Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital (2008) FACTS: Appellants Shri V.S. Krishnan and five others filed Company Petition before CLB under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 402, 403 and Schedule XI. According to the petitioners, they were collectively holding in excess of 1/10th of the issued share capital of…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *