Match List-I with List-II List-I - Legal PropositionList-II - Case Law (A). Doctrine of Indoor…
Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy ((1934)) illustrates the limits of the doctrine of indoor management, Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC ((1963)) applied the…
Choose your answer
Match List-I with List-II
| List-I - Legal Proposition | List-II - Case Law |
|---|---|
| (A). Doctrine of Indoor Management | (I). Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. v Horne (1933)1 Ch 935 |
| (B). Doctrine of Ultra Vires | (II). Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878)3 AC 1218 |
| (C). Lifting of Corporate Veil | (III). Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy, (1934) |
| (D). Duties of Promoters | (IV). Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1963) |
Answer and explanation
Correct answer D
Kotla Venkataswamy v. Chinta Ramamurthy ((1934)) illustrates the limits of the doctrine of indoor management, Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC ((1963)) applied the doctrine of ultra vires to a donation outside the company's objects, Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. v. Horne (1933) lifted the corporate veil, and Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) laid down the fiduciary duties of promoters, so the correct matching is "(A) - (III), (B) - (IV), (C) - (I), (D) - (II)".
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
-
CLAT PG
Subject revision for a passage-based exam
-
AILET PG
Subject revision
-
Bihar Judicial Services
Subject revision