Assignment On Company
Assignment On Company
The word “Company” is derived from the Latin word ‘Com’ and ‘pany’. ‘Com’
means ‘simultaneously’ and ‘pany’ means ‘livelihood’. So, company is such kind
of business organization where a group of people provides capital for earning
profit and by this profit they maintain their livelihood.
According to Sec 2(1), Company Act, 1994 “Company means a company formed
and registered under this Act or any existing company.”
2.Ensure due and proper administration of the funds and assets of companies in the
interest of the investing public.
4. Arrange for investigation into the affairs of companies and provide for effective
audit in dealing with cases of dishonesty, and fraud in the corporate sector.
1. Government Company: If the 51% or more shares are owned by the govt.
of a company, then it will be called Government Company. It is also
called Public Sector Company. Though it is formatted under the
Company Act, but the conduction and management is directly controlled
by the govt. Example: DESA, WASA etc.
1. Holding Company: The Company which owns more than 50% shares
of another company or control the management of another company,
then that company will be called holding Company.
There are also some other company except the above such as non-business
company, special company etc.
Private Ltd. Company VS Public Ltd. Company
Public Ltd. Co. and Private Ltd. Co. both are the companies which are limited by their
shares. Though both have perpetual succession and created under the Company Act but
there are some differences in their formation process and activities. The differences
between them are shown below:
By above discussion we have discussed about the differences between Public ltd. Co. and
Private ltd. Co.
Meaning of a corporate veil
The principle of a separate legal entity of a company was recognized in the case of
Salomon v. Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897), which stated that a company has a
separate existence from its members. Thus, this concept protects the shareholders
from being personally liable for any wrong or obligations of the company.
Also, the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd.
v. State of Bihar and others, held that a corporation is a natural person and has its
own existence. However, it is not always that the court is bound to take the
company as a separate legal entity.
Meaning of a corporate veil: a company is a legal person distinct from its members
or shareholders; this concept is the veil of incorporation. The court is usually not
willing to lift this veil to see who is under control. But on some occasions, the
court will disregard the concept of corporate entity and below are some of the
exceptions:
First, when the number of members becomes less than the required minimum fixed
by the companies Act 1994; if the company runs its business for more than six
months than the company shall be liable for all debts contracted within those six
months. Thus, under section 222 of the companies Act it ensures the right of
creditors seeing the number of members by lifting the corporate veil.
Second, as per section 259 of the companies Act if in the event of winding up of
company it appears that the business was carried out for fraudulent purposes then
the court will lift the veil for a public purpose and bring out the real culprit who
controlled the business fraudulently.
Third, section 225 of the companies Act 1994 provides the rule for authentication
of documents, and in any types of transactions, the name of the company shall be
specifically mentioned. Thus, if any director violates this rule and enters into and
contract without mentioning the name then on the application by the aggrieved
person, the court will make such person or director liable.
Fourth, the directors of a company are jointly and severely liable to repay the
application money with interest if the company fails such to refund of those
applications which have not allotted shares within 130days of issue of prospectus
than the court shall enter into this fact.
And finally, under section 187 the court may treat the subsidiary company as the
only branch of holding company if found any fraud from them. As a general rule,
the subsidiary company and the holding company are treated as a separate legal
entity.
First, every company must pay taxes as it is the public revenue and if it is found by
the court that the company if formed for evading taxes or ignoring tax obligations
then the court shall lift the corporate veil without taking into consideration its
separate legal entity and hold the persons liable behind this as seen in the case of
Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee petit, (1927) .
Second, law does not permit what is against the public interest. This philosophy is
also applied in relation to the formation of the company. Where it is found that the
machinery of incorporation of a company used to defraud creditors or defeat law
than the court will take legal action against such company by ignoring its separate
legal entity. This principle has been well-founded in Jones vs. Lipman (1962),
where the court looked into the reality of the situation and ignored the transfer for
public policy.
Third, where it is found that the company has incorporated and until then avoided
its legal obligations, the court can disregard the legal personality of the company
and will proceed as if no company existed by that name.
Fourth, if a person controlling the affairs of a company is an enemy of the country,
the court may in its discretion examine the character of the person and may declare
the company to be an enemy company. In Daimler Co. Ltd. Vs. Continental
Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. (1916) the court declared a company an enemy
company because the payment of the debt amount to trading with the enemy and
therefore the company was not allowed to proceed with the action.
Fifth, the court will lift the corporate veil where it finds that the company is a mere
cloak or sham. This precedent can be seen in the case of Gilford Motor Co. Ltd.
Vs. Horne (1933) Where the former employee agreed with a company not to
solicit its customers but went on to opening a company and breaching the
agreement as a result. Under the circumstances, the court issued an injunction and
restrained them from carrying on the business.
In conclusion, it can be said that the company enjoys its separate legal entity by
owning or selling properties. It can also be sued and sue if any criminal offence is
committed or made up the by people acting as agents of the company by using the
‘seal of the company’ then the members or shareholders committing fraud or such
acts shall be liable under the Companies Act 1994. As such, when a person
commits offences in the name of a company, the court, where necessary will
uncover the legal personality behind the veil and will make them liable.