CASE 1: 35 per cent of the paid-up capital of a private company is held by a public company.

Does the private company become a public company? Give reason for? your answer. Yes, the private company cans become a public company.
BADRI PRASAD V NAGARMAL

A private company can become a public company by I. Conversion by default (sec 43) II. Conversion by operating of law (sec 43A) III. Conversion by choice or volition (sec 44) Also on following grounds:1. File a copy of resolution altering the articles within 30 days of passing thereof, with the registrar. 2. Take Steps to raise its membership to at least 7 if it is below that member on date of conversion and also increase the number of its directors to more than 2 if it is below the number.
CONCLUSION:-

If 35% of the paid up capital of a private company is held by the public company. The private company can become a public company as the saw provided for it.

CASE 2: A transferred certain land to B on the condition that B would never sell the land to coloured person. B sold the land to a company composed exclusively of Negros. A took action for the annulment of this conveyance on the ground that property in effect had passed to coloured person. Will he succeed? No, he will not succeed. Peoples pleasure park Co V. Rohelder The condition is that B should not less the land to coloured person. But B sold the land to the company which composed exclusively of Negroes. In this the company and the members are different. Company enjoys separate legal entity. A company is in law regarded as an entity separate from its members. It has an independent corporate existence. As a company is a legal person distinct from its members, it is capable of owning, enjoying and disposing of property in its own name. Although its capital and asset are contributed by its shareholders, they are not the private and joint owner of companys property. CONCLUSION:As company and the members are different. B sold the land to a company but not to colored persons. Though the company composed of Negroes they are not the owner of the land. So A will not succeed.

CASE 3: A and B and C carrying on business under the name and style of A, B and C clothiers formed a private company. They held all the shares in the company. They sold certain premises to the new company and made a huge profit which was assessed to tax. They contended that the profit count not be taxed. It is contention valid? No, this contention is not valid Commr. Of Income tax V. Associated clothiers. Kondoli Tea Co.Ltd Re(1886) I.L.R 13 Cal.43 A certain Tea Estate was transferred to a company by certain person who became the shareholders of the company. These persons claimed exemption from valosem duty on the ground that transfer was from them to themselves under another name. The company was a separate body altogether was as much as conveyance, a transfer of the property as if the shareholders had been totally different persons. CONCLUSION:This contention is not valid as the premises were sold to the new company and the company and shareholders are different. So the profit cannot be taxed.

CASE4: A company put up Telephone. Wines in a certain areas. There was no power in the memorandum to put up wires there. The defendants cut them down. Can the company sue for the damage done to the wires? Yes, the company can sue for damage done to the wires. National Telephone Co. Vs.St.Peter Port constables. When the company exceeds its authority, the act is good to the extent of the authority and bad as to the excess. But of the excess cannot be separated from the authority conferred on the company by the memorandum, the whole transaction would be affected by the doctrine of ultra virus would be void. But there is nothing to prevent a company from protecting its property. Whether a particular act on the part of a company is within its powers is a question of fact and is decided on the construction of the terms of the memorandum. CONCLUSION:The company can sue for damages done to the wires as the company exceeds it authority the act is good to the extent of the authority.

CASE5: Widosn Chemicals Co.Ltd was described in a bill of exchange as widsons Co.Ltd. A. Is the company liable on this bill? B. If not who will be liable? A. No, the company is not liable on this bill? B. The directors will be liable Atkins and Co. V. Wardle and others Omission of the word Limited makes the name incorrect. Where the word limited forms part of a companys name, omission of this word shall make the name incorrect. If the company makes a contract without the use of the word limited, the officers of the company who make the contract would be deemed to be personally liable [Atkins and Co. V. Wardle, [1889] 61 L.T.23] Dermative Co.Ltd V. Ash worth. CONCLUSION:Omission of the world chemicals makes the name incorrect. Chemicals is a part of a companys name, so omission of the word is incorrect. As the company described in a bill of exchange as Widsons Co.Ltd avoiding the word chemicals. The directors will be liable for the act.

CASE6: The directors of a company borrowed money from L. They had the power to borrow such money but only subject to the ordinary resolution passed at the general meeting of the company. In fact no such resolution had been passed. a. Is the company bound by the loan. b. Will it make any difference if the resolution required to be passed is special resolution but not ordinary resolution? a. Yes the company bound by the loan, provided L is not aware of the lack of authority of the director to borrow. b. The company will not be bound by the transaction, as the special resolution after its registration, becomes a public document of which the lender is deemed to have constructive notice. Royal British Bank V.Turquand. Doctrine of Constructive notice protects the company against outsiders, the doctrine of indoor management seeks to protect outsiders against the company. Doctrine of constructive notice does not depends operate against the company. It operates only against the outsiders dealing with the company. It prevents from alleging that he did not know that the memorandum and Articles rendered a particulars act ultra virus the company. CONCLUSION:A could recover the amount from the company on the ground that he was entitled to assure that the resolution has been passed.

CASE1:

35 per cent of the paid-up capital of a private company is held by a public company. Does the private company become a public company? Give reason for your answer. Yes, the private company can vecome a public company.
BADRI PRASAD V NAGARMAL

A private company can become a public company by I. Conversion by default (sec 43) II. Conversion by operating of law (sec 43A) III. Conversion by choice or volition (sec 44) Also on following grounds:1. File a copy of resolution altering the articles within 30 days of passing thereof, with the registrar. 2. Take Steps to raise its membership to at least 7 if it is below that member on date of conversion and also increase the number of its directors to more than 2 if it is below the number.

CONCLUSION:If 35% of the paid up capital of a private company is held by the public company. The private company can become a public company as the saw provided for it.

CASE2: A transferred certain land to B on the condition that B would never sell the land to coloured person. B sold the land to a company composed exclusively of Negros. A took action for the annulment of this conveyance on the ground that property in effect had passed to coloured person. Will he succeed? No he will not succeed.

Peoples pleasure park Co V. Rohelder

The condition is that B should not less the land to coloured person. But B sold the land to the company which composed exclusively of Negroes. In this the company and the members are different. Company enjoys separate legal entity. A company is in law regarded as an entity separate from its members. It has an independent corporate existence. As a company is a legal person distinct from its members, it is capable of owning, enjoying and disposing of property in its own name. Although its capital and asset are contributed by its shareholders, they are not the private and joint owner of companys property.

CONCLUSION:As company and the members are different. B sold the land to a company but not to coloured persons. Though the company composed of Negroes they are not the owner of the land. So A will not succeed.

CASE3: A and B and C carrying on business under the name and syle of A, B and C clothiers formed a private company. They held all the shares in the company. They sold certain premises to the new company and made a huge profit which was assessed to tax. They contended that the profit count not be taxed. It is contention valid? No this contention is not valid

Commr. Of Income tax V. Associated clothiers. Kondoli Tea Co.Ltd Re(1886) I.L.R 13 Cal.43
A certain Tea Estate was transferred to a company by certain person who became the shareholders of the company. These persons claimed exemption from valosem duty on the ground that transfer was from them to themselves under another name. The company was a separate body altogether was as much as conveyance, a transfer of the property as if the shareholders had been totally different persons.

CONCLUSION:This contention is not valid as the premises was sold to the new company and the company and shareholders are different. So the profit cannot be taxed.

CAES4: A company put up Telephone. Wines in a certain areas. There was no power in the memorandum to put up wires there. The defendants cut them down. Can the company sue for the damage done to the wires? Yes the company can sue for damage done to the wires.

National Telephone Co. Vs.St.Peter Port constables.

When the company exceeds its authority, the act is good to the extent of the authority and bad as to the excess. But of the excess cannot be separated from the authority conferred on the company by the memorandum, the whole transaction would be affected by the doctrine of ultra virus would be void. But there is nothing to prevent a company from protecting its property.

Whether a particular act on the part of a company is within its powers is a question of fact and is decided on the construction of the erms of the memorandum.

CONCLUSION:-

The company can sue for damages done to the wires as the company exceeds it authority the act is good to the extent of the authority.

CASE5: Widosn Chemicals Co.Ltd was described in a bill of exchange as widsons Co. Ltd. A. Is the company liable on this bill? B. If not who will be liable? A. No, the company is not liable on this bill? B. The directors will be liable

Atkins and Co. V. Wardle and others

Omission of the word Limited makes the name incorrect. Where the word limited forms part of a companys name, omission of this word shall make the name incorrect. If the company makes a contract without the use of the word limited, the officers of the company who make the contract would be deemed to be personally liable [Atkins and Co. V. Wardle, [1889] 61 L.T.23] Dermative Co.Ltd V. Ash worth.

CONCLUSION:Omission of the world chemicals makes the name incorrect. Chemicals is a part of a companys name, so omission of the word is incorrect. As the company described in a bill of exchange as Widsons Co.Ltd avoiding the word chemicals. The directors will be liable for the act.

CASE6:

The directors of a company borrowed money from L. They had the power to borrow such money but only subject to the ordinary resolution passed at the general meeting of the company. In fact no such resolution had been passed. A. Is the company bound by the loan? B. Will it make any difference if the resolution required to bypass is special resolution but not ordinary resolution? A. Yes, the company bound by the loan, provided L is not aware of the lack of authority of the directors to borrow. B. The company will not be bound by the transaction, as the special resolution after its registration, becomes a public document of which the lender is deemed to have constructive notice. Royal British Bank V.Turquand. Doctrine of Constructive notice protects the company against outsiders; the doctrine of indoor management seeks to protect outsiders against the company. Doctrine of constructive notice does not depends operate against the company. It operates only against the outsiders dealing with the company. It prevents from alleging that he did not know that the memorandum and Articles rendered a particulars act ultra virus the company.

CONCLUSION: A could recover the amount from the company on the ground that he was entitled to assure that the resolution has been passed.

CASE1: 35 per cent of the paid-up capital of a private compay is held by a public company. Does the private company become a public company? Give reason for your answer. Yes, the private company can become a public company. BADRI PRASAD V NAGARMAL A private company can become a public company by, I. Conversion by default (sec 43) II. Conversion by operation of law (sec 43A) III. Conversion by choice or volition (sec 44) Also on following grounds:1. File a copy of resolution altering the articles within 30 days of passing thereof, with registrar. 2. Take Steps to raise its membership to at least 7 if it is below that member on date of conversion and also increase the number of its directors to more than 2 if it is below the number. CONCLUSION:If 35% of the paid up capital of a private company is held by the public company. The private company can become a public company as the saw provided for it.

CASE2: A transferred certain land to B on the condition that B would never sell the land to coloured person. B sold the land to a company composed exclusively of negros. A took action for the annulment of this conveyance on the ground that property in effect had passed to coloured person. Will he succeed? No ,he will not succeed. Peoples pleasure park Co V. Rohelder The condition is that B should not less the land to coloured person. But B sold the land to the company which composed exclusively of negroes. In this the company and the members are different. Company enjoys separate legal entity. A company is in law regarded as an entity separate from its members. It has an independent corporate existence. As a company is a legal person distinct from its members, it is capable of owning, enjoying and disposing of property in its own name. Although its capital and asset are contributed by its shareholders, they are not the private and joint owner of companys property. CONCLUSION:As company and the members are different. B sold the land to a company but not to coloured persons. Though the company composed of negroes they are not the owner of the land. So A will not succeed.

CASE3: A and B and C carrying on business under the name and syle of A, B and C clothiers formed a private company. They held all the shares in the company. They sold certain premises to the new company and made a huge profit which was assessed to tax. They contended that the profit count not be taxed. It is contention valid? No ,this contention is not valid Commr. Of Income tax V. Associated clothiers. Kondoli Tea Co.Ltd Re(1886) I.L.R 13 Cal.43 A certain Tea Estate was transferred to a company by certain person who became the shareholders of the company. These persons claimed exemption from valosem duty on the ground that transfer was from them to themselves under another name. The company was a separate body altogether was as much as conveyance, a transfer of the property as if the shareholders had been totally different persons.

CONCLUSION:This contention is not valid as the premises were sold to the new company and the company and shareholders are different. So the profit cannot be taxed.

CASE4: A company put up Telepbhone. Wines in a certain areas. There was no power in the memorandum to put up wires there. The defendants cut them down. Can the company sue for the damage done to the wires? Yes the company can sue for damage done to the wires. National Telephone Co. Vs.St.Peter Port constables. When the company exceeds its authority, the act is good to the extent of the authority and bad as to the excess. But of the excess cannot be separated from the authority conferred on the company by the memorandum, the whole transaction would be affected by the doctrine of ultra virus would be void. But there is nothing to prevent a company from protecting its property. Whether a particular act on the part of a company is within its powers is a question of fact and is decided on the construction of the erms of the memorandum. CONCLUSION:The company can sue for damages done to the wires as the company exceeds it authority the act is good to the extent of the authority.

CASE5: Widosn Chemicals Co.Ltd was described in a bill of exchange as widsons Co. Ltd. A. Is the company liable on this bill? B. If not who will be liable? A. No, the company is not liable on this bill? B. The directors will be liable Atkins and Co. V. Wardle and others Omission of the word Limited makes the name incorrect. Where the word limited forms part of a companys name, omission of this word shall make the name incorrect. If the company makes a contract without the use of the word limited, the officers of the company who make the contract would be deemed to be personally liable [Atkins and Co. V. Wardle, [1889] 61 L.T.23] Dermative Co.Ltd V. Ash worth. CONCLUSION:Omission of the world chemicals makes the name incorrect. Chemicals is a part of a companys name, so omission of the word is incorrect. As the company described in a bill of exchange as Widsons Co.Ltd avoiding the word chemicals. The directors will be liable for the act.

CASE6: The directors of a company borrowed money from L. They had the power to borrow such money but only subject to the ordinary resolution passed at the general meeting of the company. In fact no such resolution had been passed. A. Is the company bound by the loan? B. Will it make any difference if the resolution required to be passed is special Resolution but not ordinary resolution? A. Yes the company bound by the loan, provided L is not aware of the lack of authority of the directors to borrow. B. the company will not be bound by the transaction as the resolution after its registration, becomes a public document of which the lender is deemed to have constructive notice. Royal British Bank V.Turquand Doctrine of Constructive notice protects the company against outsiders; the doctrine of indoor management seeks to protect outsiders against the company. Doctrine of constructive notice does not depends operate against the company. It operates only against the outsiders dealing with the company. It prevents from alleging that he did not know that the memorandum and Articles rendered a particulars act ultra virus the company. CONCLUSION:A could recover the amount from the company on the ground that he was entitled to assure that the resolution has been passed..

DONE BY, K.SANTHAPPAN, II B.COM Sec A, MCC.

DONE BY, S.A. RAJA. II B.COM Sec A, MCC

DONE BY, V.PRASANTH, II B.COM Sec A, MCC.