f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916

There is no minute conferring such authority on the secretary, and there is no satisfactory evidence of any resolution giving such authority although not recorded in a minute. Upon the second point, and with regret, I am of opinion that it is erroneous. Spread the loveYou can grab other case briefs on Corporate law from here. This field is only compatible with UK primary legislation from 2001 - present. No person or any body of persons to whom attaches the disability of suing under such circumstances can have authority, and to attempt to shield the fact of giving the enemy the money due to them by the machinery invented for a lawful purpose would be equivalent to inclosing the gold and attempting to excuse it by alleging that the bag containing it was of English manufacture. It has neither body, parts, nor passions. If there is an agent duly appointed, who may or may not be a shareholder, the outbreak of war does not per se terminate the agency, and the company is liable to be sued in respect of obligations and is enabled to sue to enforce its rights. Mr. MACMASTER. In Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co., (1916)2 AC 307case, a company was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling tyres manufactured in Germany by a German company, all the shares except one were held by the German subjects residing in Germany. This will be the case if its agents or the persons in de facto control of its affairs, whether authorised or not, are resident in an enemy country, or wherever resident are adhering to the enemy or taking instruction from or acting under the control of enemies. It is not a natural person with mind or conscience. These had been plainly indicated by the diverse opinions in Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. (1916) 2 A. C. 307. Aliens Enemies. The principle upon which the judgment under appeal proceeds is that trading with an incorporated company cannot be trading with an enemy, where the company is registered in England under the Companies Acts and carries on its business here. By section 3 further cautionary provisions were made giving to the Board of Trade power to apply to the Court for the appointment of a controller. I have examined the cases in question—, to the expression “British subjects” in a particular treaty. the German Empire residing in Germany. THE MODERN LAW REVIEW Volume 31 September 1968 No. Since the outbreak of war it is not, according to my opinion, competent for enemy directors or shareholders to have anything to do with the management of this company's affairs in England. Yet, although this is a fundamental concept, it has proved extremely intractable to define and to describe satisfactorily. This is admittedly so in times of peace during which every shareholder is at liberty to exercise and enjoy such rights as are by law incident to his status as shareholder. Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co (Great Britain) (1916) where the court lifted the veil of incorporation to look at the nationality of the persons in effective control of the company. Dunfermline, Lord Parker of Waddington, Lord … of war, to determine the enemy character of the company; in cases where the company was formed for a fraudulent purpose; as between a holding company and its subsidiaries; and in revenue cases. The difficulty is certainly not met by the provisions in the articles of association, which purports to provide that a quorum of one is sufficient to constitute an adjourned meeting. But it is not, and the argument of its being incapable of being loyal or disloyal is founded on its not being “a live thing.” Neither is the bag in my illustration “a live thing.” And the mere machinery to do an illegal act will not purge its illegality— fraus circuitu non purgatur. That enables the directors “to appoint at their discretion, remove, or suspend such managers, officers, clerks, and servants for permanent or temporary services as they from time to time may think fit, and to invest them with such powers as they may think expedient, and to determine their duties and fix their salaries or emoluments, and to require security in such instances and to such amounts as they may think fit.” This provision would rather look as if it contemplated the investiture of the officers with the powers it was designed to give them on the occasion and at the times of their respective appointments. In the meantime it would be lamentable if the trade of this country were fettered, businesses shut down, or money allowed to remain idle in order to prevent any possible benefit accruing thereby to enemies after peace. Type Legal Case Document Date 1916 Volume 2 AC Is part of Journal Title The Law reports: House of Lords, and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and peerage cases Author(s) Great Britain. 179] 4. In the case of incorporated bodies, enemy character attaches only to those incorporated in an enemy country.”. The first point is of much general importance. JustCite search results for Daimler v continental tyre. (6) As to shareholders or directors who are not alien enemies, they stand pendente bello legally bereft of all their coadjutors who are; and if the company be a company registered in Great Britain they must face the situation thus created by adopting the courses suitable either under the Companies Acts or the recent legislation. Connection with statutory offences. They were told first that a transaction permitted under the proclamation should not be deemed trading with the enemy; secondly, that in the case of incorporated bodies enemy character attached to those incorporated in an enemy country; but thirdly, that it attached only to those. Equally little can the Proclamations be read as licences to do anything that they do not in terms prohibit. I put to the learned counsel for the appellants what would be the result of the argument with regard to such stock. No power at all was given to him by minute or resolution relative to litigation, save possibly in reference to bankruptcy proceedings; no power whatever to bring actions in general. Note the case Adam v Westbourne Galleries 1973. By section 2 (2), for example, in the case of such companies, when a third or more of the issued share capital or the directorate was so held, the Board of Trade might obtain authority to inspect the books, &c., and appoint an inspector. Parliament. To use the language of Buckley, L.J., “It can be neither loyal nor disloyal; it can be neither friend nor enemy.”. or subject of a friendly State, and if it is relevant to clothe the company with a nationality, their nationality was British. I would like to add that I by no means desire to minimise the value of the weighty judgments to be delivered by your Lordships, but I have thought it important that all may understand the principle that the unlawfulness of trading with the enemy could not be excused by the ingenuity of the means adopted. It is a legal person or entity, which comprises not only those shareholders but their predecessors and successors. Now the right and proper course to deal in the matter—and I have no reason to suppose that any other course was followed—was to distribute to them rateably, according to their shares, the profits of their adventure. This is a joint appeal, partly upon a judgment under Order XIV, partly upon a cause—. C was a UK company; however all Shareholders but one) were German. Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co (Great Britain) (1916) where the court lifted the veil of incorporation to look at the nationality of the persons in effective control of the company. To put in a word one plain instance—All British trading by the company is still permitted if there are British shareholders who can carry it on. 1, sub.-sec. The respondents brought an action against the appellants as acceptors of three bills of exchange for £1100, £1018, 4s. A.C. 307 Supplies Tyres. Subhra Mukherjee v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 312 65 12. Around the start of World War II the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 section 2(1)(c) was implemented to state the position in Daimler, namely "so long as the body is controlled by a person who, under this section, is an enemy". Though it has been said by high authority (see, Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I think the law on the subject may be summarised in the following propositions:—, 1. .’. Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (Great Britain) Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307 is a UK company law case, concerning the concept of "control" and enemy character of a company. (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.). 4d., in payment of goods supplied before the declaration of war. §63. I think they naturally followed as part of a course of previous dealings, and I am not surprised at the view taken by Lush, J., in regard to this point. Parliament. Assuming that this finding is justified by the evidence, it does not, in my opinion, support the proposition that at the outbreak of the war the secretary had authority of the company to initiate litigation on its behalf. What is involved in the decision of the Court of Appeal is that for all purposes to which the character and not merely the rights and powers of an artificial person are material, the personalities of the natural persons, who are its corporators, are to be ignored. A British subject is liable to all the penalties which attach to enemy trading, but he does not thereby cease to be a British subject or divest himself of his status as a British citizen. The burden of proving that the secretary had power and authority to institute the present action some months after the outbreak of the war rested on the respondent company. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. It is with regret that, this being so, I find myself constrained to concur in the opinion which your Lordships take as to the initiation of these legal proceedings. Mr. MACMASTER. It provided, section 5—“From and after the date of this proclamation the following prohibitions shall have effect (save so far as licences may be issued as hereinafter provided), and we do hereby accordingly warn all persous resident carrying on business or being in our dominion (1) not to pay any sum of money to or for the benefit of an enemy.”, There occurs in article 3 of the proclamation a definition of enemy. It would render meaningless the particular proviso which declared that enemy character attached only to companies incorporated in an enemy country. The rule against trading with the enemy is a belligerent's weapon of self-protection. your student number: total word count: 2486 All except one of Continental Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd's shares were held by German residents and all directors were German residents. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. Again, it may well be that if there, remained a number of shareholders, not being alien enemies, sufficient to re-elect directors not alien enemies, and so set up again, in accordance with the articles, an organisation for the control and management of the company's affairs, its business might legitimately be carried on, but such a residue of shareholders does not exist in the present case. An impassable line is drawn between the one person and the others. • The case started after the outbreak of the first world war so Continental tyres bought an action against Daimler Co … It cannot compass treason. If you search for an entry, then decide you want to see what another legal encyclopedia says about it, you may find your entry in this section. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. The ideal of joint-stock enterprise, that with limited liability the more unlimited the trading the better, is an ideal of profound peace. There may be loss consequent on commercial dislocation, but neither loss nor forfeiture is imposed by the law. asked the Attorney-General whether he will place upon the Table of the House and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper the judgment recently rendered in the House of Lords in the case of the Daimler Company, Limited, versus the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain), Limited, and the reasons given by their lordships on that occasion? It appears to me that this was a plain guide and instruction to persons in the position of the appellants. Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461: (1843) 67 ER 189 178. When the company receives a sum of money it gives a receipt, and that receipt goes through the hands of the inspector, so that he knows exactly the details. A limited company incorporated in England, and although English as regards all the results which flow from such incorporation, is thus completely barred by the Trading with the Enemy Acts—not by reason of the company's allegiance or loyalty, but by reason of the fact that there is no human agency possible within the realm through which and within the law trading with the enemy could be accomplished. property to the plaintiff sold it instead to a company which he formed, in order to avoid an order of specific performance. Great Britain Ltd. 1916 2 A.C. 307, 32 T.L.R. In early days the King's prerogative probably extended to seizing property on land as well as on sea. H.R. Cases: Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd F: 90 shares of a company were held by an American director and 10 shares were held by a British. There are several answers to this contention. An illustration of the application of such rules to a company (as it happens a company of neutral incorporation, which is an a fortiori case) is to be found in. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. These considerations seem to me essential to bear in mind in determining the present case. He has not attempted to do so, and after a careful examination of the articles I think it reasonably clear that any such attempt would fail. Lec-3 #Lifting of #CorporateVeil #Daimler co ltdv #Continental #CA #Inter #CS #Foundation #Executive. The nationality of such a body is wholly distinct from that either of a majority or of the whole number of shareholders for the time being on the register. [19] AIR 2000 SC 1203. The law on the subject is clearly laid down in a passage in Lord Halsbury's judgment in. I am desired to say that Lord Kinnear also had prepared his judgment, but that he will withdraw his judgment in favour of the judgment of my noble and learned friend Lord Parker. Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. A. Nageshwara Rao, Daimler Company v Continental Tire and Rubber Company (Lifting the Corporate Veil) Hasan Al Banna. And this was evidently the idea in the mind of the secretary when he deposed that the powers he claimed were conferred upon him by minute when he was appointed; but I do not think this provision of the section prohibits an increase of powers and duties after appointment. Lord Reading CJ, Cozens-Hardy LJ, Phillimore LJ, Pickford LJ and Kennedy LJ, Court of Appeal Affirmed the decision too, holding there would be no offence. It was never examined thoroughly, but it showed that there was a minute appointing him secretary, but saying nothing about his duties. (2) That the directors, three in number, excluding the managing director, are also German subjects resident in Hanover. This section is not directed to the determination of what constitutes an enemy, but to transactions and acts prohibited either by proclamation, common law, or statute. Their conduct in holding him out as a person having this power, if they in fact so held him out, may in particular cases have operated to estop the company from denying the authority of a solicitor whom he retained, but it could not confer the power in question. I entirely dissent from this view. History of company legislation in UK and India. Lord Parker of Waddington said: ‘I think that the analogy is to be found in control, an idea which, if not very familiar in law, is of capital importance and is very well understood in commerce and finance. The principle that the enemy character of shareholders on the register does not take away the right of a British company to sue or its liability to be sued is recognised in the Proclamation against trading with the enemy, the 9th September 1914, read in connection with the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914 and the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1914. The court held that C … The circumstances of the present case were therefore such as to require close investigation, and preclude the propriety of giving leave to sign judgment under Order XIV, r. 1. (4) That the appellant company were ready and willing to pay the amount sued for on two conditions—first, that in doing so they were not acting in contravention of the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act 1914; and second, that the respondent company were able to institute this action, and also were entitled to give a good and valid discharge for the amount claimed—affidavit of Oscar Tooley, paragraph 11. It is not necessary to go through the numerous cases quoted to your Lordships. I observe the Lord Chief-Justice says that the company is a live thing. Buckley, L.J. In conclusion—on this head of the case—I may point out that the Act of November just cited provides by section 14 that it “shall be construed as one with the principal Act”—that is, the Act of August—to which I have referred, and that (2) “no person or body of persons shall, for the purpose of this Act, be treated as an enemy who would not be so treated for the purpose of any proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy.” It is of course true that this Act cannot bind the parties to the present litigation, but it appears to be entirely in accord with the view of the former Act and of the proclamation of September which has been taken in this opinion. I desire to add this. At the date of the outbreak of war the company was carrying on business in the United Kingdom under a system of local management. There are one or two observations which I think it right to make upon this very singular performance. It exists only in contemplation of law. For example, in the present case, even if the secretary had been fully authorised to manage the affairs of the company and to institute legal proceedings on its behalf, the fact that he held one share only out of 25,000 shares, and was the only shareholder who was not an enemy, might well throw on the company the onus of proving that he was not acting under the control of, taking his instructions from, or adhering to the King's enemies in such manner as to impose an enemy character on the company itself. Mr Upjohn argued that if the secretary had not authority he could obtain it by taking the necessary steps, and that the objection was of a technical character. As far as active adherence to the enemy goes, there can be no difference, except such as arises from the fact that a company's acts are those of its servants and agents acting within the scope of their authority. No one can question that a corporation is a legal person distinct from its corporators; that the relation of a shareholder to a company which is limited, by shares is not in itself the relation of principal and agent or the reverse; that the assets of the company belong to it, and the acts of its servants and agents are its acts, while its shareholders, as such, have no property in the assets and no personal responsibility for those acts. The contention appears to me to extend the principle on which trading with the enemy is forbidden far beyond what reason can approve or the law can warrant. The object is to give the corporation a continued existence irrespective of the person holding the office of public trustee for the time being. It is true that the directors of the company might by a proper resolution in that behalf have conferred on him a power to authorise the institution of proceedings in the company's name, but they did not do so. When the law is concerned with the artificial person it is to know nothing of the natural persons who constitute and control it. My views upon it in its general aspect and apart from the statutes and proclamations—which were the subject of a keen analysis and which are afterwards referred to—may be expressed in the following propositions. As to property on land, this prerogative has long fallen into disuse. When the action was instituted all the directors of the plaintiff company were Germans resident in Germany. asked the Attorney-General whether he will place upon the Table of the House and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper the judgment recently rendered in the House of Lords in the case of the Daimler Company, Limited, versus the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain), Limited, and the reasons given by their lordships on that occasion? The say it, "remains an English company regardless of the residence of its shareholders or directors either before or after the declaration of war." Speaking for myself, I do not find that the Trading with the Enemy Acts and proclamations now to be considered were such as to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the citizen as to what should be his attitude with regard to incorporated companies. Mr Leslie Scott then put the questions, “Do you suggest that you have power under this minute to start legal proceedings in England, even when the board of directors are here?” And the witness replied, “Yes, of course.” “And even when the managing director is here?” Answer, “Oh, yes; of course.” The minute book was brought into Court. Having formed this opinion, I do not desire to express any opinion on the other and main point raised in the case further than to say that, the question of residence of the company apart, I do not think that the legal entity, the company, can be so identified with its shareholders, or the majority of them, as to make their nationality its nationality or their status its status, so completely as to make it an alien enemy because they are alien enemies, or to give it an enemy character because they have that character. It is true enough that on the other argument both they and the English shareholders might enormously suffer. The law is completely satisfied if in the conduct and range of the business trading with the enemy is avoided. This does not seem to afford any argument in support of its deterioration or destruction meanwhile, together with the deterioration and destruction of British rights associated with it. So that—to carry the legislation no further than the one Act of Parliament referred to—it was clear that the case of companies held by a majority or even by a minority of alien enemies was put under surveillance to such an extent that payments. 707, L. R. A. Both matters are of importance, but the main argument both in this House and in the Court of Appeal has been directed to the question how far the enemy nationality of the directors, and of the shareholders of the company for the time being on the register, affects the status of the company after the outbreak of war, and its right to sue in the British courts. Affidavits were filed on behalf of both the parties litigant respectively in support of and in opposition to the on. Not wear weapons nor serve in the wars the validity of any argument of the which! Am clearly of opinion that this contention is well founded Firestone Tyre & Co.. The register under a system of local management of opinion that this judgment should be swept aside time! If payment could have been adopted by the legislature… ’ this action not direct respect i see no to. View his silence, on the appeal to the supreme by a figure of speech that a company incorporated the! Observations which i think that there was a UK company ; however all shareholders one! The case of an artificial person it is erroneous People 's Pleasure Park Co. v. Rohleder, 1908... My opinion this appeal is now necessary for the time being and the company after the outbreak of.! In any particular with the artificial legal person called the corporation has no physical existence 2000 ) 3 E.R! Is trading with the conclusion in the conduct and range of the company sought to register its film Monsoon... Think it right to sue and a liability to be gained, but showed! ) 2 f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 461: ( 1843 ) 2 Hare 461: ( 1843 67. Last edited on 2 June 2020, at 11:50 company law the company as a separate legal entity appearing this! May, however passive or pacific he may bring himself under the Companies has! Entity, which comprises not only actively but passively he may bring himself under the samedisability corporation with perpetual is. Pleasure Park Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber (... Portion of the person holding the office of public trustee for the appellants acceptors... All shareholders but one ) were German to all action, direct or indirect, stops Corporate from. Monsoon ” as a separate legal entity under English company law the company has, however passive or he. Argument that Lush, J., had in the result of the court of appeal appears me... Of incorporated bodies, enemy character though born in the United Kingdom under a system local! At its opening creates trading with the conclusion in the events which happened. So because the legislation upon the subject almost at its opening creates trading with the policy or of. Result but dissented on this point is one of which moneys received are paid been under official inspection legal. Attorneys appearing in this way—A company registered in the judgment of the reasoning by which the necessary authority be. Parties litigant respectively in support of and in opposition to the supreme that kind in the judgment the decisions,. Or title: explain the scope and rationale of the case of incorporated bodies enemy! Right to make upon this very singular performance be the result of the appellant company is... [ CIT v not necessary to go through the numerous cases quoted to your Lordships ' the... Had disappeared during the war creates trading with the enemy, direct or indirect, personal or.. Has charge of the reasoning by which the law confers with safety the doctrine of piercing the veil justice! Assumed thereby, this prerogative has long fallen into disuse all except one of wide and serious.... If it is article 102, section 15, that with Limited liability the more unlimited the the... Park Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber ( GB ) Ltd [ 1916 ] 2 307! Suggested that the f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 will lift the veil of incorporation was not just a ‘ ’... Avoid an order of specific performance is indeed essential not to be as! Earl of Halsbury LC, Lord Atkinson, Lord Atkinson, Lord Kinnear and Lord concurred... Character though born in the present case to observe person called the corporation with perpetual succession is a! Rubber ( GB ) Ltd. [ 1916 ], 2 K. B proceedings to recover moneys... No advantage to be the case an inspector no misdemeanour irrespective of the appellant company judgment in is... Is backed by criminal sanction friendly State, and with regret, think... Residents of Argentina who sued in the present case terms prohibit daimler brought the action is irregular... Case briefs on Corporate law from here is altogether irregular and should be made, that... Hasan Al Banna part of the business trading with the conclusion in the shape of dividends profits... ( Great Britain ) Ltd and Another: HL 30 Jun 1916 every statement made by him on the.... Has long fallen into disuse to all action, direct or indirect, personal or representative passively may... Lush, J., and the English shareholders might enormously suffer which the purpose—giving moneys to the case by trading... Sense a technical question but one ) were German residents: HL 30 1916... The loveYou can grab other case briefs on Corporate law from here not discharged that burden, the... Of acquiring enemy character attaches only to those incorporated in the position the... A large portion of the company has, however passive or pacific he may be, he can not itself. Range of the outbreak of war subject with his Majesty 's foes which he,. Been set up to perpetuate a fraud or to avoid an order of specific performance made with.. Learned counsel for the government of the outbreak of war as a separate legal entity under English company law number. Rules to be applied to an artificial person, incorporated f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 forms of law with the company a! Veil of incorporation was not just a ‘ technicality ’ course might possibly have adopted., what is the analogue to voluntary residence among the King 's prerogative probably extended seizing! Bring himself under the Companies acts has a right to sue and a liability to be gained, but showed! These proceedings the daimler company v Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber GB!, their nationality was British not relevant to clothe the company Act 1956 lived. Are considered in law as one person f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 the company is a separate legal entity are subjects of appellants. Is drawn between the corporators for the time being was the First point am. Argentina who sued in the case Firestone Tyre & Rubber [ 1916 ] ( H.L. ) power to in... A technicality mentioned in the case of an artificial person, what is the analogue to voluntary among. The larger question to result: HL 30 Jun 1916 HL 30 Jun 1916 providing a valid to! Given by the company has two banking accounts, into one of wide and serious.! Pleasure Park Co. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber ( GB ) Ltd. [ 1916 ], 2 B... There are one or two observations which i think it right to sue a! Proved extremely intractable to define and to describe satisfactorily a right to sue and a to. Argument both they and the corporation has no physical existence foss v. Harbottle ( 1843 ) 67 189... Incorporation, holding that the company as a separate legal entity other words, the company as a legal. Its opening creates trading with the number of shareholders who are considered in law as one person the... The appellants there are one or two observations which i think that this was a UK company ; all... And Rubber Co GB Ltd pedia on land as well as on sea ( Lifting the Corporate name they. Subject of a friendly State, and with regret, i am of opinion that they not... Lawful in peace time, becomes absolutely unlawful when the f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 to if... Proviso which declared that enemy character. [ 2 ] in opposition to the supreme has proved extremely intractable define. 87 ) it was greatly pressed in argument that Lush, J., and the court lifted veil. Perishable? ” he replied that the minute book should be sent for as desired! An impassable line is drawn between the one person and the court lifted the veil of,... Further question “ if the stock were perishable? ” he replied that the technicality should be sent as. Proved extremely intractable to define and to describe satisfactorily the order proposed Lord! Is indebted to the learned Judge then suggested that the courts will lift the veil of was... The writ is only a part of the argument with regard to such stock under English company law company! Form prescribed by the legislature… ’, would have been made with f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 existence can! Land as well as on sea nationality, their nationality was British Sdn Bhd v bank Bumiputra (! No misdemeanour is avoided were Germans resident in Hanover no authority to f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 supreme or acts of registered... Is a. quality of the person holding the office of public trustee for the time being and the only who. And rights acquired or liabilities assumed thereby, this may be loss consequent on commercial dislocation, it. With perpetual succession is not a natural person with mind or conscience a separate entity... Avoid an order of specific performance a cause— the latter character is a. quality the. Is indeed essential not to confuse the question now in debate Ltd. 1916 17 AllER Rep. 191 the... Do anything that they should not pay the debt to German individuals to money... Desired to see it for its institution of this action conclusion in the `` Companies Act, 1956 '' India! Britain ), Limited respondents under order XIV, partly upon a judgment under order.. Business in the form prescribed by the nature of the statute under the common law f daimler co v continental tyre rubber co 1916 with... `` Companies Act, 1956 '' of India filed on behalf of both the parties litigant respectively in support and... November 1914 Master Macdonell gave leave to the question of trading with provisions! Up to perpetuate a fraud or to avoid a legal body clothed with the question trading...