Latest ads
-
🚀 එක පැකේජ් එකයි - මාසෙටම Unlimited Internet! 🌐- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
🎬 CapCut Pro 1 Month Access! LKR 600- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
🚀 Google One AI PRO Plan (Gemini Pro Activation) – 18 Months Access! LKR 2200- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
Canva Pro Lifetime Own Mail Activation LKR 500- sayuru bandara
- Updated:
-
Tele marketing executive- nuwandse
- Updated:
දන්න කෙනෙක් කියල දෙන්න.
- Thread starter King kekille
- Start date
you are a natural person. So you can institute an action by your name. But your pet or car , house cannot do so. If is a company incorporated under Companies Act it can also institute action and also be sued by any person . This is called 'legal person'.(though not a person like you)
Not only companies but also statutory bodies such as Central Bank, Transport Board, TRC , Universities ect get the same 'legal personality' under special laws (not from Companes Act)
මට දැනගන්න ඕන මොකක්හරි වංචාවක් සදහාම සමාගමක් ලියාපදිංචි කර සමාගම මාර්ගයෙන් ඒ වංචාව සිදුකරොත්...උසාවියක නඩුවක් වැටෙන්නේ අදාල සමාගමේ නමින්ද? නැත්නම් අයිතිකරුවන්ටද?
danna widihata
https://www.casrilanka.com/casl/images/stories/EDBA/1 company law part 1 3-11-2019 notes.pdf
Salomon vs. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897) AC 22:
Salomon was a boot and shoe manufacturer who traded as a sole proprietor for nearly 30 years. Consequently, he incorporated a company and gave his wife and children 1 share each in the company and kept the balance shares in his own name. As security for the shares in the company, Salomon obtained debentures from the company. Subsequently, the company went bankrupt. On the company’s winding up it was found that its remaining assets were insufficient to satisfy both its debenture holders and its trade creditors. The question arose as to whether the debentures secured on assets issued to Salomon will get preference as against the other unsecured debts of the company.
The unsecured trade creditors argued that Salomon and the company (i.e. Salomon & Co. Ltd.) were truly the same person since he and his wife and children owned the company; therefore, he could not owe money to himself; and accordingly, his rights as a debenture holder should not get priority and he should be paid after making payment to third party unsecured trade creditors.
Court held: Salomon’s company was a separate legal entity from Salomon, although he owned almost 99% of the shares, and therefore, the debentures issued to Salomon was a secured debt which should gain priority over the unsecured debts owed to the trade creditors. Thus Salomon’s claim should prevail over that of the third party trade creditors and proceeds of the assets should be first allocated to settle the debentures of Salomon.
https://www.casrilanka.com/casl/images/stories/EDBA/1 company law part 1 3-11-2019 notes.pdf
Salomon vs. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897) AC 22:
Salomon was a boot and shoe manufacturer who traded as a sole proprietor for nearly 30 years. Consequently, he incorporated a company and gave his wife and children 1 share each in the company and kept the balance shares in his own name. As security for the shares in the company, Salomon obtained debentures from the company. Subsequently, the company went bankrupt. On the company’s winding up it was found that its remaining assets were insufficient to satisfy both its debenture holders and its trade creditors. The question arose as to whether the debentures secured on assets issued to Salomon will get preference as against the other unsecured debts of the company.
The unsecured trade creditors argued that Salomon and the company (i.e. Salomon & Co. Ltd.) were truly the same person since he and his wife and children owned the company; therefore, he could not owe money to himself; and accordingly, his rights as a debenture holder should not get priority and he should be paid after making payment to third party unsecured trade creditors.
Court held: Salomon’s company was a separate legal entity from Salomon, although he owned almost 99% of the shares, and therefore, the debentures issued to Salomon was a secured debt which should gain priority over the unsecured debts owed to the trade creditors. Thus Salomon’s claim should prevail over that of the third party trade creditors and proceeds of the assets should be first allocated to settle the debentures of Salomon.
