INTRODUCTIONS:
The company has no power to do any act not authorized expressly or impliedly by its memorandum and any act so done is ultra vires and incapable of ratification, even if every member of the company assents to it.
CONCEPT OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE:
Doctrine of Constructive notice is nothing but a protection provided to the company against the outsiders. The doctrine of indoor management is completely contrary to it. It is the protection provided to the outsiders against the company. Thus both the doctrines maintain a balance and do not lead to any abuse. One thing that needs to be taken into consideration that when a person enters into any transaction with the company it simply needs to abide by the Articles of association (AOA) and Memorandum of association (MOA). The person won’t be looking into any internal irregularities of the company. Thus, if there are any damage due to such internal irregularities to the person due to the company then the company has to compensate for that, as the person has acted on good faith.
CASE DETAILS:
In the case of Pacific Coast Coal Mines Ltd. Vs Arbuthnot, 1917 AC 353, it is stated that MOA and AOA are the constitution of the Company and is a public document, further any person entering into the transaction is presumed to be aware of it. But he doesn’t need to know about the things that are happening within the doors of the company.
shareholders in a position to judge for themselves whether or not to adopt a resolution at a special meeting, without indicating any fiduciary obligation. Here, the Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal in British Columbia, advises that resolutions to consent to buying out the shares of the directors and releasing them from liability for any claims are ineffective due to the absence of proper notice putting each shareholder in a position to judge whether or not to consent
RESULT OF THE CASE:
When the third party is aware of the irregularity of the company. If the person slightly knows about it and somewhere knows that the company with whom he has entered into the transaction does not have the proper authority to execute such transactions. Then this doctrine won’t be applicable.
Forgery is another exception where if the person has entered into the transaction with a clear motive of forgery then he is excluded from the ambit of this doctrine, as such transaction is void ab initio. So here the question of consent does not arise as the company was unaware of the forgery and thus making a signature for transaction ultimately become void.
If the person has acted beyond its scope of authority, then this doctrine will not be applicable.