51. In which of the following cases corporate veil of the company has not been lifted by the court:
52. Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the given below the Lists:
List-I (Decided Cases)
List-II (Principle Stated)
a. Royal British Bank v. Turquand
1. Corporate personality
b. Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd.
2. Rule of majority
c. Foss v. Harbottle
3. Doctrine of ultra vires
d. Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche
4. Indoor management
List-I (Decided Cases) | List-II (Principle Stated) |
a. Royal British Bank v. Turquand | 1. Corporate personality |
b. Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. | 2. Rule of majority |
c. Foss v. Harbottle | 3. Doctrine of ultra vires |
d. Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche | 4. Indoor management |
53. Which of the following statements is not correct?
54. Who is authorized to issue license to Section 8 company under Companies Act, 2013?
55. Which of the following case is about doctrine of ultra vires?
56. The Companies Act, 2013 has done a tremendous job by providing Company's Social Responsibility (CSR) as a mandatory activity. A company has to comply with mandatory CSR norms where
57. Producer company is based on the principles of . .
58. To safeguard the interest of the shareholders through class action suits, an application may be made to the Tribunal. Which one of the following is wrong?
An application
An application