Anil, Sunil and Vaishali are close friends from a renowned business family. After doing their masters from IIM, Ahmadabad they decided to start e-commerce in commodities. However, they were not sure about the legal forma
CS Executive · Company Law and Practice · PYQS · December 2023
Anil, Sunil and Vaishali are close friends from a renowned business family. After doing their masters from IIM, Ahmadabad they decided to start e-commerce in commodities. However, they were not sure about the legal format in which they should start the business. On request, M/s AB & Associates, a firm of practicing Company Secretaries advised them to form a company limited by shares being the best suitable device for running the business. After complying with the legal formalities, the company in the name and style of "Dynamic E-Commerce Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") was incorporated on 1st April, 2020 by seven subscribers (including Anil, Sunil and Vaishali) to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company with the main object of carrying e-commerce in grains, grocery, and medicines throughout India. The registered office of the company is situated in Pune, the State of Maharashtra (India). The capital clause of the Memorandum of Association (MOA) provides as under: "The authorised share capital of the company shall be ₹1,00,00,000" The Articles of Association (AOA) contain the capital clause as below: "The authorised share capital of the company shall be ₹1,00,00,000 divided into 8,00,000 equity shares, carrying voting rights pari-passu of ₹10 each and 20,000 preference shares of ₹100 each." The company offered preference shares to the financial institution, its promoters, and a group of individuals on which rate of dividend shall be 10% as per the term of issue. The financial institution refused to subscribe to the issue of preference shares on the contention that MOA is ambiguous as it does not authorise the company to issue class of preference share and hence the act of offering preference shares is ultra vires the company. Based on the above facts answer the following: Whether the contention of the financial institution in refusing to subscribe to the issue of preference shares of the company is valid?
Answer & Explanation:
Doctrine of Ultra vires: Any activity done contrary to or in excess of the scope of activity of the Companies Act, Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association will be ultra vires. Ultra vires activities can be divided into the following three divisions: Ultra Vires the Companies Act: Any act done contrary to or in excess of the scope of activity of the Companies Act will be ultra vires the Companies Act. Such an act is void and cannot be ratified even by unanimous resolution of all the shareholders. Further, a provision contained in the memorandum, articles, agreement, or resolution shall be void if it's repugnant to any of the provisions in the Act. Ultra Vires the Memorandum of Association: In the case of a company whatever is not stated in the memorandum as the objects or powers is prohibited by the doctrine of ultra vires. As a result, an act which is ultra vires is void, and does not bind the company. Neither the company nor the contracting party can sue on it. Such an act is void and cannot be ratified even by unanimous resolution of all the shareholders. Ultra Vires the Articles of Association: If the acts of a company are ultra vires the Articles of Association but intra vires the memorandum of association (i.e., outside the scope of articles but within the powers conferred by the memorandum), it will be ultra vires the Articles of Association. These acts are also void, but the company in general meeting may alter the Articles by a special resolution and ratify the unauthorized acts. Validity of contention of the bank: In Re. South Durham Brewery Company [(1875) LR 7 HL 65c], the MOA of the company was unclear as to the classes of shares to be issued by it, but the AOA of the company gave power to issue shares of different classes as described therein. The Hon'ble Court held that Articles can be used to explain the ambiguity contained in the memorandum. "... their Lordships agree that in such cases the two documents must be read together at all events so far as may be necessary to explain any ambiguity appearing in the terms of the memorandum, or to supplement it upon any matter as to which it is silent." Hence, the act of offering the preference shares is not ultra vires the Companies Act, the MOA or AOA of the company and the contention of the bank to refuse it is not valid in light of the explanation and case law cited above.
Topics: Company Law
Related Questions in this Topic
- Analyse the eligibility of a minor to become member of the company and other issues incidental thereto in the following ...
- You are CFO of GCL Textiles Limited. The last three years' Balance Sheet of GCL Textiles Limited contains the following ...
- You are CFO of GCL Textiles Limited. The last three years' Balance Sheet of GCL Textiles Limited contains the following ...
- JK Scooters Ltd. is a listed company and wants to appoint a small shareholders' directors suo motu. You are being a Comp...
- JK Scooters Ltd. is a listed company and wants to appoint a small shareholders' directors suo motu. You are being a Comp...