The Doctrine of Indoor Management

The doctrine of Indoor Management plays a crucial role in keeping stakeholders safe. This doctrine is like a shield, rooted in legal rules and written in company law, that helps individuals and businesses stay protected when dealing with companies.

Enroll Now For Best Commerce Classes

Doctrine of Indoor Management Overview

Origin of Doctrine of Indoor Management

The Doctrine of Constructive Notice

Exception Of The Doctrine of Indoor Management

• Exception for Notice of Irregularity : The principle concerning irregularities does not hold when the affected individual is aware of the irregularity through direct knowledge or constructive notice. An illustrative case is Howard V Patent Ivory Manufacturing Company (1888) 38 Ch D 156, where the company's articles permitted directors to borrow up to 1,000 pounds, with the possibility of extending this limit subject to General Meeting consent. Despite needing more necessary resolution, directors obtained 3,500 pounds from one director who issued debentures. Consequently, the company's liability was restricted to 1,000 pounds, as the directors' awareness of the resolution's absence precluded them from invoking protection under Turquand’s rule.
• Requirement for Inquiry in Suspicion of Irregularity : When a party dealing with the company harbours suspicions regarding contractual circumstances, it is incumbent upon them to conduct inquiries. Failure to do so renders them unable to rely on the aforementioned rule. This principle is exemplified in the case of Anand Bihari Lal V Dinshaw & Co, (1946) 48 BOMLR 293, wherein the plaintiff, accepting a property transfer from the company's accountant, was deemed to have shouldered the responsibility of acquiring a copy of the Power of Attorney to ascertain the accountant's authority, thereby rendering the transfer void.
• Acts Beyond Apparent Authority : If a company member engages in activities exceeding the scope delineated by the company's articles, the counterparty cannot avail themselves of this doctrine. The company is only liable if the member's actions align with powers delegated to them by the articles. Essentially, the plaintiff may hold the company accountable only if the member's actions fall within the bounds of authority prescribed in the articles.
• Representation through Articles : This exception to the Doctrine of Indoor Management can be perplexing. It posits that if the company's articles delegate certain powers to a member without necessitating a board resolution, it is reasonable to assume that such delegation is valid. In such cases, the company cannot assert defence based on the absence of a board resolution, as the granting of power is inferred from the articles themselves.
• Invalidity due to Fabrication or Forgery : Transactions involving fabrication are deemed void ab initio, as they lack genuine consent. This principle, elucidated in the Ruben V Great Fingall Consolidated case [1906] 1 AC 439, underscores that forged or fabricated elements nullify any purported agreement. For instance, in the mentioned case, where a share certificate bore forged signatures, the holder, unaware of the forgery, was absolved from scrutiny. The court held the company accountable for the actions of its officials, emphasising the company's responsibility to prevent and address such misconduct.

Examples of Doctrine of Indoor Management

Example: Faulty Appointment and Valid Cheque