According to this doctrine, persons dealing with the company need not inquire whether internal proceedings relating to the contract are followed correctly, once they are satisfied that the transaction is in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association.
Shareholders, for example, need not enquire whether the necessary meeting was convened and held properly or whether necessary resolution was passed properly. They are entitled to take it for granted that the company had gone through all these proceedings.
Table of Contents
What is the doctrine of indoor management and what are its exceptions?
The doctrine helps protect external members from the company. And indeed, states that it entitles the people to presume that internal proceedings are as per documents with the Registrar of Companies.
The doctrine of indoor management evolved around 150 years ago in the context of the doctrine of constructive notice. Moreover, the role of the doctrine of indoor management as opposed to the role of the doctrine of constructive notice. Whereas the doctrine of constructive notice protects a company against outsiders. The doctrine of indoor management protects outsiders against the actions of a company. This doctrine also is a possible safeguard against the possibility of abusing the doctrine of constructive notice.
Here, therefore, we have seen what is the doctrine of indoor management and its exceptions. Now let’s see the basis for a doctrine of indoor management.
Basis for Doctrine of Indoor Management
1. What happens internally to a company is not a matter of public knowledge. An outsider can only presume the intentions of a company, but not know the information he/she is not privy to.
2. If not for the doctrine, the company could escape creditors by denying the authority of officials to act on its behalf.
In case this ‘outsider’ has actual knowledge of irregularity within the company, the benefit under the rule of indoor management would no longer be available. In fact, he/she considers to be a part of the irregularity.
If with a minimum of effort, the irregularities within a company could be discovered, the benefit of the rule of indoor management would not apply. The protection of the rule is also not available where the circumstances surrounding the contract are so suspicious as to invite inquiry. And the outsider dealing with the company does not make proper inquiry.
The rule does not apply where a person relies upon a document that turns out to be forged since nothing can validate forgery. However, a company can never be held bound for forgeries committed by its officers.