Home › CS Executive › companylaw › Introduction to Company Law › In State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.…
In State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.T.O., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1811, the Supreme Court held that a company:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D.
1. Lesson 1 records the Supreme Court ruling that the State Trading Corporation, though a legal person, was NOT a citizen and can act only through natural persons.
2. Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 expressly excludes a company or association or body of individuals from citizenship.
3. Even so, Article 14 (equality before law) and certain other "person"-based fundamental rights are available to a company.
4. In R.C. Cooper and Bennett Coleman, shareholders' rights as citizens were held protected even when injury was caused through the company.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 2 (Company Law) — Lesson 1: Introduction to Company Law, pp. 2-35._
Related questions
Which of the following statements correctly distinguishes a partnership firm from a companUnder Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, the term "company" means:The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) was constituted by the Government of IndThe Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) was established to investigate corporate fraIn legislative drafting, a provision beginning with the words "Notwithstanding anything coUnder Section 339(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, where in the course of winding up of a coUnder Section 7(7)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, where a company has got itself incorporaWhich of the following is NOT a characteristic of a company under Indian Company Law?