Monday, 29 September 2025

Corporate Personality

 

Corporate Personality

Definition of “Company”. Under Indian law, a company is an incorporated association of persons. Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines “company” as “a company incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law”. In other words, any corporate entity registered under the present Act or earlier companies acts qualifies as a company. By fiction of law, such a corporation is treated as an artificial person distinct from its members, possessing rights and obligations of its own.

Extent of Application (s.1(4)). Section 1(4) makes clear that the Companies Act, 2013 applies broadly to modern corporate bodies, with specified exceptions. It expressly covers “companies incorporated under this Act or under any previous company law”. It also extends (subject to inconsistency) to insurance companies, banking companies, electricity companies, and other special acts. Thus the Act governs virtually all corporations in India, except where a special law (like the Banking Regulation Act or Insurance Act) expressly prevails.

Evolution of Company Law in India

The law of corporate personality in India has deep historical roots, evolving through colonial and post-Independence statutes. The first Indian joint-stock legislation was the Companies Act of 1850, modelled on the British Companies Act 1844. This Act provided a framework for registering companies but did not initially allow limited liability. A key change came in 1857, when limited liability was introduced by amendment – allowing shareholders to cap their liability at the amount unpaid on their shares. (Initially banking companies were excluded, but by 1858 limited liability was extended to banks as well.) In 1866 the Indian Companies Act was consolidated into a comprehensive code regulating incorporation, governance and winding-up. This 1866 Act was largely modelled on Britain’s Companies Act 1862. Two decades later, the law was rewritten in 1882 to keep pace with contemporary English reforms. The 1882 Act remained the central company law in India until the early 20th century.

A landmark statute was the Indian Companies Act, 1913, based on the English Companies Consolidation Act of 1908. The 1913 Act applied to all incorporated companies in India and contained detailed provisions on formation, management and winding up. It was frequently amended in the 1920s and 1930s (culminating in a major revision in 1936 aligning it with the British Act of 1929). After Independence, India set up the H.C. Bhabha Committee (1950–52) to review company law. Its report led to the Companies Act, 1956. The 1956 Act (based in part on the English Companies Act 1948) was a thorough, standalone statute governing company incorporation, capital, directors, meetings, audits, and winding-up. It remained in force for nearly six decades, amended many times but largely intact as the principal law for Indian companies.

Economic liberalization in the 1990s and corporate scandals prompted further updates. A series of amendments (1993, 1996, 2000–2002, etc.) introduced modern governance measures like buyback rules and the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal. Finally, after extensive consultation, the Companies Act, 2013 was enacted (effective August 2013), replacing the 1956 Act. The 2013 Act modernized corporate law: it introduced new concepts such as One-Person Companies (OPCs), mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) spending for certain companies, class-action suits by investors, enhanced roles for independent directors, and stricter anti-fraud provisions. In short, Indian company law has evolved from basic registration rules in the mid-19th century to a comprehensive, investor-friendly regime in 2013.

Constitutional Right to Form Associations

The Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the freedom to form associations. Article 19(1)(c) explicitly provides that “all citizens shall have the right… to form associations or unions”. Incorporating a company is essentially an exercise of this right – a group of individuals (citizens) freely band together into a corporate entity. (Of course, the company itself – as an artificial person – is not a “citizen” under Article 19 and cannot claim fundamental rights; only its natural-person members do.) Courts have recognized that citizens may validly exercise their Article 19(1)(c) freedom to incorporate and belong to companies or societies unless reasonable restrictions apply. For example, in Dharam Dutt v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court noted that people’s rights to form and manage associations (here, an intellectual body) remain protected under Article 19(1)(c) even when government acts on a statutory basis. In sum, while a company is a “legal person” distinct from its shareholders, its formation arises from the constitutional freedom of association enjoyed by those shareholders.

Previous Company Law [S.2(67)]

The Companies Act, 2013 defines “previous company law” in Section 2(67) to cover all historical Indian company statutes. This includes Acts enacted before 1866, the Indian Companies Act 1866, the Companies Act 1882, the Companies Act 1913, the 1942 Ordinance on transferred companies, the Companies Act 1956, and equivalent laws in erstwhile provincial jurisdictions. It even includes the Portuguese Commercial Code relating to “sociedades anonimas” and special laws like the Sikkim Companies Act (1961) where applicable. Thus the definition ensures continuity of law – any company incorporated under an earlier act is still treated as a company under the 2013 Act.

Nature and Advantages of Corporate Personality

By law, a corporation (once validly incorporated) has a separate legal personality from its shareholders or directors. This gives rise to several fundamental features and advantages:

  • Independent corporate existence [S.9]. Upon registration (Section 9), a company becomes a body corporate in its own right. It “acquires a legal existence separate from its members”. In practical terms, the company can own property, enter contracts, sue and be sued in its own name. Its existence does not hinge on the lives or identities of its owners. This principle was famously affirmed in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897), where the House of Lords held that a properly formed company is a distinct legal person, even if one individual controls it. Indian courts follow this rule. The corporate entity alone bears legal rights and obligations; shareholders are not parties to the company’s contracts or debts. Thus, the corporation “stands apart as a person”: its assets belong to the company, its name signs the contracts, and it is liable for its actions.

  • Limited liability. A primary benefit flowing from separate personality is that members’ liability is limited. Shareholders are liable only to the extent of unpaid share capital – they are not personally on the hook for company debts. If the company fails, creditors can claim only against the company’s assets. The personal assets of shareholders and directors are protected. As one commentator explains, “none of the shareholders … are liable beyond the amount they have invested in the corporation”. This encourages investment and entrepreneurship. (It also means the company’s debts are corporate debts alone.) Of course, limited liability is not absolute – courts may “pierce the corporate veil” and hold individuals liable if the company is a mere sham or is used to defraud creditors. But generally shareholders enjoy the shelter of limited liability.

  • Perpetual succession. A company’s existence is perpetual: it continues unaffected by changes in membership or the death or insolvency of any member. Members may come and go, but the company’s legal identity remains constant until it is legally wound up. In practice, this means a company can last indefinitely, enabling long-term planning. Even if all original founders leave or pass away, the company survives through its governing authorities (the board of directors) and remaining shareholders. Its assets and rights remain vested in the company, not in the individuals. Thus, many companies endure for decades or even centuries, regardless of turnover in owners.

  • Separate property. A corporation can own property in its own name. Any assets acquired by the company are owned by the company itself, not by shareholders. Shareholders have no claim to company property, beyond their share interest. This ensures corporate assets are clearly identified and managed for company purposes. As one legal analysis notes, this arrangement “allows a perpetual succession of the property” because the company alone holds it. (By contrast, in a partnership the property is owned jointly by the partners.) Notably, the House of Lords in Macaura v Northern Assurance (1925) held that even if one person is the sole shareholder, company property cannot be treated as his personal property. Thus the tea estate insured by Macaura belonged solely to the company. Similarly in India, courts recognize that property transferred to a company remains the company’s property.

  • Transferable shares. A company’s capital is divided into shares, which (subject to any contractual restrictions in the Articles) are freely transferable. Shares are movable property of the shareholder, and can be sold or inherited. This transferability makes it easy to change ownership: an investor can exit by selling shares without disturbing the company’s existence. It also enables capital mobilization. By inviting the public to subscribe for shares (an IPO or stock listing), a company can raise funds quickly and on a large scale. Even if shareholders change over time, the company continues as before. (Transferable shares are a key advantage over e.g. partnerships, where “business interests” are not as easily sold.)

  • Capacity to sue and be sued. Because it is a legal person, a company may initiate or defend legal actions in its own name. Unlike an unincorporated association, the company need not rely on individual members or trustees in litigation. Its obligations and rights in court belong to the company, though naturally it must act through human agents (directors or representatives). This means, for example, a company can sue for debts owed to it, or be held liable (and fined or penalized) without dragging shareholders into the case. Any judgement for or against the company affects the company’s assets directly.

  • Professional management (separation of ownership and management). A modern corporation is run by a board of directors and professional managers who may be distinct from the shareholders. Owners (shareholders) exercise ultimate control only through voting, whereas the day-to-day management is entrusted to experienced directors and executives. This centralized professional management provides expertise and continuity. It also means that ownership (the shareholders) and control (the managers) are legally separate. As one analysis notes, shareholders are like the “organism’s limbs,” while directors are the “brain” controlling the company’s actions. This allows the company to pursue long-term strategies, fund expansion, and operate efficiently even as shareholders retire or sell their holdings.

  • Financing power. By virtue of its corporate form, a company enjoys strong capacity to raise capital. It can issue shares or debentures to the public, borrow in its own name, and benefit from economies of scale. For example, listing shares on a stock exchange provides a powerful mechanism to generate funds. One commentator explains that by selling shares and debentures publicly, “a company generates its capital and finances,” and can thus amass large resources quickly. Also, since the company is perpetual, creditors and investors have greater confidence of repayment or dividends over time. All corporate revenues, investments, and liabilities reside with the company alone, simplifying accounting and making the business more transparent. In short, corporate finance is distinct from personal finance of members, enabling larger projects and investment.

Each of these features – independent existence, limited liability, perpetual life, separate property, transferability of interest, legal capacity, professional management, and standalone finances – flows directly from the doctrine of corporate personality. Together they make the corporate form a powerful vehicle for business, encouraging investment and growth while limiting individual risk. These characteristics have been consistently upheld in case law. For example, Salomon v. Salomon (1897) remains the touchstone affirming that an incorporated company must be treated as a separate legal person. Similarly, Indian jurisprudence (e.g. Kondoli Tea Co. Ltd. vs. Unknown, 1886) has ruled that property transferred to a company belongs to the company alone, reinforcing that members “did not hold the estate as tenants in common”. In practice, this legal framework of corporate personality underpins modern commerce: it balances the advantages of collective enterprise with the protections and responsibilities of corporate status.

References: Companies Act, 2013 §§ 1(4), 2(20), 2(67), 9; Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd., (1897) AC 22 (HL); Law Drishti, Evolution of Company Law in India; Constitution Art. 19(1)(c); Lexibal Corporate Personality (notes); iPleaders Corporate Personality (blog).

๐Ÿ”– Blog by Chandan Sha | For more legal insights, stay tuned to Study on Law Hills.



๐Ÿ”– About Study on Law Hills

By Chandan Sha
One-stop blog for law notes, moot memorials & legal updates

Study on Law Hills is a legal blog that simplifies Indian law for students and professionals. From Constitution to Criminal Law, it offers:

  • ๐Ÿ“š Law notes for exams
  • ⚖️ Moot court memorials (Petitioner & Respondent)
  • ๐Ÿงพ Case commentaries & updates
  • ๐Ÿ“ฒ Legal reels & lectures via Instagram & YouTube

๐Ÿ”— Blog: studyonlawhills.blogspot.com
๐Ÿ“ธ Instagram: @slawh2023
๐Ÿ“ง Email: csstarmoon1000@gmail.com
๐Ÿ”— LinkedIn: Chandan Sha


Supreme Court Judgement on Stray Dogs (11 August 2025)

 Supreme Court Judgement on Stray Dogs (11 August 2025)[1]

Author – chandan sha

 Background

This suo moto writ petition (C) No. 5 of 2025, titled “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price,” was taken up by the Supreme Court of India due to the rising menace of stray dog bites, with particular impact on children, elderly, and vulnerable populations within the National Capital Region (NCR), including Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram and surrounding areas.

The judgement responded to increasing instances of dog bites, road accidents caused by strays, and resultant public concerns over insufficient government measures. Data presented included an alarming increase in dog bite cases:

Year         

Delhi |

India   

2022

6,691

2,189,909 

2023

17,874

3,052,521 

2024 

25,210

3,715,713 

Jan 2025     

3,196

429,664   

 

As of January 2025, Delhi saw a 50% rise in dog bite cases compared to the previous year, indicating a systemic failure to address the issue.

 

 

 Supreme Court’s Observations and Rationale

1. Grim Situation and Public Safety:  

The Court described the issue as "extremely grim," highlighting not only the physical pain and potential fatal consequences of dog bites (notably rabies) but also the inadequacies in timely medical response and authenticity/availability of vaccines. The presence of stray dogs impacts the fundamental right to move freely and safely in public spaces, as guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

2. Ineffectiveness of Previous and New Rules:  

The Court critically analyzed both the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 and the recently enacted Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023. It noted that despite sterilization and immunization measures, stray dog populations and bite incidents have continued to rise, debunking assumptions that such interventions would inherently solve aggression or reproduction-related problems.

3. Fundamental Rights and Comparative Law:  

The Court asserted that allowing stray dogs to remain on the streets is a direct violation of the fundamental rights of humans, prioritizing public safety over ambiguous “rights” for animals. Citing Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023), the judgement clarifies that animals do not possess fundamental rights under the Constitution, thereby reinforcing the government’s duty to protect human rights. Several Municipal Laws (Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957; Maharashtra Police Act, 1968; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1955) were referenced as supporting the confinement and destruction of strays when necessary.

 

 

4. Duty of the State:  

The judgement repeatedly emphasized that the State is under a constitutional and statutory duty to prevent infringement of fundamental rights caused by stray dog attacks.

5. Global Comparison:  

The Court referred to the situation in developed countries—where there are no stray dogs on public roads—as evidence of inadequacy in current Indian legislative and administrative measures.

 

 Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The judgement lays down an exhaustive set of directions, fundamentally changing policy on stray dogs in NCR:

1. Immediate Removal of Strays from Streets:  

All NCR authorities to start removal of stray dogs from public spaces, especially vulnerable and outskirts areas, without delay or compromise.

Creation of a special force if necessary for this purpose.

2. Creation of Dog Shelters/Pounds:  

Shelters/pounds must be established across NCR (including Delhi, Ghaziabad, NOIDA, Faridabad, Gurugram) in eight weeks.

Initial capacity for 5,000 dogs in next 6–8 weeks.

3. Humane Treatment:  

Sufficient personnel for care, feeding, and medical attention of detained stray dogs, with special attention to avoid cruelty or overcrowding.

Monitoring by CCTV.

Vulnerable/weak dogs to be accommodated separately.

 

4. No Release Back to Streets:  

Captured stray dogs must not be released back into public spaces under any circumstances.

Proper records for identification and auditing.

 

5. Compliance and Accountability:  

Strict action, including contempt, against any obstruction or negligence by individuals or organizations.

Daily records of capture and shelter population.

Helpline to be set up for prompt response to dog bite complaints (within 4 hours).

 

6. Sterilization and Immunization:  

All dogs in shelters must be sterilized, dewormed, and immunized—consistent with Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023—but not re-released.

 

7. Adoption:  

Shelter adoption allowed only per protocols; no re-release of adopted strays to streets.

Violations subject to strict consequences.

 

8. Rabies Vaccine Transparency:  

Availability and transparency about genuine rabies vaccines, including information on stock and treatment centers.

 

9. Review and Status Reporting:  

Regular status reports required; further directions contingent on progress documented by authorities.

 

 Analysis: Legal and Policy Implications

 

A. Paradigm Shift in Policy:  

For the first time, the Supreme Court has ordered a complete removal of stray dogs from the streets rather than cyclical capture-sterilize-release that has proven ineffective. The judgment prioritizes public health and fundamental rights above protectionist approaches that have failed to address the crisis.

B. Rights Discourse:  

By distinguishing between statutory protection for animals (under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960) and constitutional protection for humans, the Court navigates complex ethical terrain, adjudicating decisively in favor of human rights.

C. Practical Enforcement and Care:  

The judgement treads a balanced approach: it mandates humane, non-cruel treatment, regular monitoring, proper shelter infrastructure, and robust medical attention for detained dogs, reflecting both legal and moral responsibility.

 

D. Individual and Administrative Accountability:  

The Court’s warning of strict action—including contempt—against any obstruction or non-compliance marks a significant escalation in judicial intervention against inertia in public administration.

E. Future Directions:  

The Supreme Court has set a precedent for active judicial engagement in animal control issues, signaling possible reforms nationwide, especially in urban areas where stray-unchecked dog populations are rising rapidly.

 Conclusion

This Supreme Court decision—reported as 2025 INSC 977, dated 11 August 2025—is a landmark moment in public health, urban governance, and animal management policy. The directions are comprehensive, ambitious, and force a clear break with previously ineffective systems. The explicit prioritization of human fundamental rights, coupled with a call for humane treatment and civic responsibility towards stray animals, attempts to resolve a decades-long impasse.

If implemented rigorously and monitored with ongoing judicial oversight, the judgement could become a blueprint for other Indian cities struggling with similar issues, recalibrating how constitutional principles and statutory duties intersect in urban governance.

 

 

๐Ÿ”– Blog by Chandan Sha | For more legal insights, stay tuned to Study on Law Hills.



๐Ÿ”– About Study on Law Hills

By Chandan Sha
One-stop blog for law notes, moot memorials & legal updates

Study on Law Hills is a legal blog that simplifies Indian law for students and professionals. From Constitution to Criminal Law, it offers:

  • ๐Ÿ“š Law notes for exams
  • ⚖️ Moot court memorials (Petitioner & Respondent)
  • ๐Ÿงพ Case commentaries & updates
  • ๐Ÿ“ฒ Legal reels & lectures via Instagram & YouTube

๐Ÿ”— Blog: studyonlawhills.blogspot.com
๐Ÿ“ธ Instagram: @slawh2023
๐Ÿ“ง Email: csstarmoon1000@gmail.com
๐Ÿ”— LinkedIn: Chandan Sha




Hello, Greetings from Study on Law Hills . We are pleased to introduce our Ultimate Legal Drafts Bundle , specially designed for law student...