The Articles of Association (AOA) are the internal rules governing the company's management, proceedings, and member rights. While the MOA defines WHAT the company can do (external boundary), the AOA defines HOW it does it (internal governance). The Doctrine of Indoor Management (Turquand's Rule) protects outsiders who deal with the company they need not verify whether internal procedures (AOA) were followed.
Legal Framework
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| S.5 | Articles of Association |
| S.5(6) | Articles shall be in Form B, C, D, or E (as applicable) |
| S.6 | Act to override MOA and AOA |
| S.10 | Effect of MOA and AOA (contract between company and members) |
| S.14 | Alteration of articles (by special resolution) |
| Table F | Model articles for company limited by shares (Schedule I) |
| S.36 | Penalty for improper use of "Limited" |
Nature and Content of AOA
| Aspect | Content |
|---|---|
| Nature | Bye-laws/regulations for internal management of the company |
| Purpose | Governs: meetings, directors, shares, dividends, accounts, borrowing, winding up |
| Relationship to MOA | Subordinate AOA cannot exceed or contradict MOA (S.6: MOA prevails) |
| Model articles | Table F (Schedule I) applies by DEFAULT if company doesn't adopt its own articles |
| Binding | Constitutes a CONTRACT between: (a) company and members, (b) members inter se (S.10) |
| Alteration | Special resolution (75% majority S.14) |
What AOA Typically Contains
| Subject | Content |
|---|---|
| Share capital | Classes of shares, rights attached, calls, forfeiture, transfer |
| Directors | Appointment, removal, remuneration, powers, meetings |
| General meetings | AGM, EGM, notice, quorum, proxy, voting, resolutions |
| Dividends | Declaration, payment, interim dividends |
| Accounts and audit | Books of account, financial statements, auditors |
| Borrowing | Powers to borrow, charges, debentures |
| Winding up | Voluntary winding up provisions |
| Common seal | Use and custody (now optional) |
AOA as Contract (S.10)
S.10: "The memorandum and articles shall, when registered, bind the company and the members thereof to the same extent as if they respectively had been signed by the company and by each member."
| Binding Effect | Content | Enforceable? |
|---|---|---|
| Company bound to members | Company must follow AOA in dealings with members | YES member can sue company for breach |
| Members bound to company | Members must follow AOA obligations | YES company can enforce member obligations |
| Members bound inter se | Articles create reciprocal rights/obligations between members | YES member can sue another member on AOA rights |
| Company/members bound to OUTSIDERS? | NO AOA is not a contract with third parties | NO outsider cannot sue on AOA |
Why: The AOA is a statutory contract it binds ONLY the parties to it (company and members). A supplier, employee, or creditor is NOT a party to the articles and cannot enforce rights claimed under them (unless separately contracted).
Doctrine of Constructive Notice
| Principle | Content |
|---|---|
| Rule | Every person dealing with a company is DEEMED TO KNOW the contents of its MOA and AOA (public documents filed with ROC) |
| Effect | Outsider cannot claim ignorance of restrictions in MOA/AOA |
| Harsh consequence | If AOA restricts directors' power to borrow above Rs.10 lakhs a lender who lends Rs.50 lakhs without checking is DEEMED to know the restriction |
| Qualification | Softened by Doctrine of Indoor Management (below) |
Doctrine of Indoor Management (Turquand's Rule)
| Principle | Content |
|---|---|
| Origin | Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856) |
| Rule | Outsiders dealing with the company are ENTITLED TO ASSUME that all internal procedures (resolutions, approvals) have been properly complied with |
| Effect | Even if a required resolution was NOT actually passed, the outsider is PROTECTED the company is bound |
| Rationale | Outsiders CANNOT investigate internal affairs they can read MOA/AOA (public documents) but cannot verify whether every board meeting actually happened |
| Limitation | Does NOT protect fraud, forgery, knowledge of irregularity, or negligence |
Turquand's Rule Explained
| Constructive Notice says | Indoor Management says |
|---|---|
| "You should know what the MOA/AOA SAYS" (public documents) | "You need NOT verify that MOA/AOA was FOLLOWED" (internal compliance) |
| Know the RULES | Need not verify the rules were OBEYED |
| External limits (what company CAN do) = your responsibility to check | Internal compliance (was resolution passed? was quorum present?) = company's problem |
Exceptions to Indoor Management
| Exception | Situation | Outsider NOT Protected |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of irregularity | Outsider KNEW that internal procedure was not followed | Cannot claim innocent reliance |
| Negligence | Circumstances were suspicious; reasonable person would have inquired | Failure to inquire destroys protection |
| Forgery | Document is forged (not merely unauthorised) forgery is a NULLITY | No one can claim under a forgery |
| Outsider is an insider | The "outsider" is actually a director/officer who KNEW of the irregularity | Cannot be both cause and beneficiary of irregularity |
| Ultra vires the company | Act is beyond MOA objects (not merely beyond directors' authority) | Ultra vires = void; indoor management doesn't save |
| No representation | No representation that internal requirements were met | Doctrine requires apparent authority |
Illustrations
-
Turquand's Rule in action (the borrowing case): ABC Ltd's AOA says: "Directors may borrow up to Rs.50 lakhs. Beyond that, special resolution required." Directors borrow Rs.1 crore from Bank X WITHOUT obtaining a special resolution. Company refuses to repay: "The loan is irregular no special resolution was passed."
Bank X invokes Turquand's Rule: "I checked the AOA borrowing is permitted (objects). Whether the INTERNAL resolution was passed is the company's internal affair. I'm entitled to assume proper procedures were followed."
Result: Company IS bound. Bank X is protected. The company must repay Rs.1 crore. The company's remedy: sue the directors for exceeding authority not refuse to honour the loan.
-
Exception: Knowledge of irregularity: Same ABC Ltd. But Bank X's manager is ALSO a director of ABC Ltd. He KNOWS no special resolution was passed. He approved the loan KNOWING it was irregular. Can Bank X claim indoor management? NO the "outsider" (Bank X through its manager) had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the irregularity. Cannot claim innocent reliance. The exception applies Bank X is not protected.
-
Forgery exception: Company secretary forges the managing director's signature on a cheque and encashes it at the bank. Bank claims: "We relied on indoor management assumed the MD actually signed." Court: "Forgery is a NULLITY. No act can flow from a forgery. Indoor management applies to IRREGULARITY (valid act done improperly), not to NULLITY (non-existent act the MD never signed at all)." Bank bears the loss of the forged cheque.
-
Constructive notice + Indoor management (working together): You want to contract with XYZ Ltd. What you MUST do: read its MOA to ensure the contract falls within XYZ's objects (constructive notice). What you NEED NOT do: verify that XYZ's board actually passed a resolution approving this specific contract (indoor management). If the contract is within objects but the board didn't properly approve: XYZ is still bound (Turquand protects you). If the contract is BEYOND objects (ultra vires): XYZ is NOT bound (even Turquand cannot save ultra vires it's void regardless).
Recall Check
- How does the AOA differ from the MOA in nature and function?
- State the Doctrine of Indoor Management and its origin.
- Name four exceptions to the Doctrine of Indoor Management.
Key Cases
Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856) Royal-British-Bank-v-Turquand-1856 Issue: Whether a company is bound by a bond signed by directors when the required resolution authorising the borrowing was never passed. Rule: Outsiders dealing with a company are entitled to assume that internal requirements of the articles have been complied with they need not verify internal compliance. Held: The bank was entitled to assume the resolution existed. Company bound by the bond. Internal irregularity is the company's problem, not the outsider's.
Ashok Gas Service v. Indian Oil Corporation (1994) Ashok-Gas-v-Indian-Oil-1994 Issue: Application of indoor management doctrine in Indian law. Rule: The doctrine applies in India persons dealing with the company in good faith may assume regularity of internal proceedings. Held: Supreme Court affirmed Turquand's rule in India outsiders dealing bona fide are protected from internal irregularities of corporate procedure.
Distinctions
| Aspect | Doctrine of Constructive Notice | Doctrine of Indoor Management |
|---|---|---|
| Favours | COMPANY (against outsider) | OUTSIDER (against company) |
| Content | Outsider deemed to know MOA/AOA contents | Outsider need not verify internal compliance |
| Scope | External documents (what is WRITTEN) | Internal procedures (what is DONE) |
| Effect | Outsider bound by restrictions they "should have known" | Company bound despite internal non-compliance |
| Origin | General registration principle | Turquand (1856) |
| Rationale | Public documents = deemed knowledge | Internal affairs = inaccessible to outsiders |
| Aspect | MOA | AOA |
|---|---|---|
| Function | External boundary (WHAT company can do) | Internal governance (HOW it operates) |
| Nature | Charter/Constitution | Bye-laws/Rules |
| Prevails | Over AOA (S.6) | Yields to MOA |
| Alteration | Difficult (special resolution + sometimes government/NCLT) | Easier (special resolution S.14) |
| Ultra vires effect | VOID (cannot be ratified) | VOIDABLE (can be ratified) |
| Third parties | Defines company's capacity vis-à-vis outsiders | Governs internal procedures; outsiders protected by indoor management |
Flashcards
Q: What is the Articles of Association? A: Internal rules governing company management meetings, directors, shares, dividends, borrowing, etc. Subordinate to MOA. Constitutes a statutory contract between company and members (S.10).
Q: What is the Doctrine of Indoor Management (Turquand's Rule)? A: Outsiders dealing with a company are entitled to ASSUME that all internal procedures (resolutions, approvals required by AOA) have been properly complied with. They need not verify internal compliance.
Q: What is the Doctrine of Constructive Notice? A: Every person dealing with a company is DEEMED TO KNOW the contents of its MOA and AOA (public documents). Ignorance of restrictions is no excuse.
Q: How do these two doctrines work together? A: Constructive notice says: "Know the RULES (MOA/AOA)." Indoor management says: "Need not verify rules were FOLLOWED (internal compliance)." Together: outsider must check what company CAN do (objects) but not whether it DID follow procedure.
Q: What are exceptions to indoor management? A: (1) Knowledge of irregularity, (2) Negligence/suspicious circumstances, (3) Forgery (nullity), (4) Insider claiming as outsider, (5) Ultra vires act, (6) No representation of compliance.
Q: Can AOA create rights for outsiders? A: No AOA is a contract only between company and members (S.10). Third parties cannot enforce rights under AOA unless separately contracted.
Exam Scenario
Gamma Ltd's AOA requires that any contract exceeding Rs.25 lakhs must be approved by the board of directors. The Managing Director (MD), without obtaining board approval, enters into a contract for Rs.40 lakhs with supplier S for purchase of raw materials (within company objects). S supplies the materials. Gamma refuses to pay, arguing the MD exceeded his authority. Advise S.
Step 1 Is the contract ultra vires the company? NO purchase of raw materials is within Gamma's objects (MOA). The transaction is intra vires the COMPANY.
Step 2 Is it irregular? YES AOA requires board approval for contracts > Rs.25 lakhs. MD did not obtain approval. The contract is ultra vires the DIRECTORS (exceeded delegated authority), not the company.
Step 3 Does Indoor Management protect S? Under Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856) and Ashok Gas v. IOC (1994):
- S checked that purchase of raw materials is within Gamma's objects (constructive notice duty discharged).
- S is ENTITLED TO ASSUME that the board approval was obtained (internal procedure S cannot verify whether the board met).
- S acted in good faith; no evidence of knowledge of irregularity or suspicious circumstances.
Exceptions? (a) S was NOT aware of the irregularity. (b) No suspicion (normal commercial transaction). (c) Not forgery (MD actually signed just lacked authority beyond Rs.25L). (d) S is not an insider.
Result: Gamma Ltd IS BOUND. S is protected by Turquand's rule. Gamma must pay Rs.40 lakhs.
Gamma's remedy: Sue the MD for breach of duty (S.166(3): acted beyond authority). MD personally liable to company for any loss. But Gamma CANNOT refuse payment to innocent third party S.