Indoor Management

The Doctrine of Indoor Management, also famously known as the Turquand Rule, is a fundamental common law principle in Company Law designed to protect third parties dealing with a company from internal irregularities they could not possibly know about.

---

1. Origin and Core Principle

The doctrine originated in the landmark English case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856).

A. The Turquand Case

• Facts: The Articles of Association (AoA) of the company (a public document) permitted the directors to borrow money on a bond only if they were authorized by a resolution passed in a general meeting of the shareholders (an internal act). The directors borrowed money from the Royal British Bank but failed to pass the necessary resolution internally.

• Issue: Could the company evade repayment by arguing the internal procedure (the resolution) was missing?

• Held: The company was held liable. The court reasoned that the bank was entitled to assume that all internal procedural requirements had been properly complied with.

B. The Principle of Indoor Management

The doctrine establishes the following rule:

An outsider dealing with a company in good faith is entitled to assume that all the internal proceedings, formalities, and procedural requirements of the company have been duly complied with.

This rule allows commerce to thrive by preventing companies from escaping liability by pointing to their own internal procedural faults.

---

2. Indoor Management vs. Constructive Notice

The Doctrine of Indoor Management is a critical exception to the Doctrine of Constructive Notice.

Doctrine	Effect	Beneficiary
Constructive Notice	Outsiders are deemed to know the contents of the public documents (MoA and AoA).	Protects the Company (If the act is ultra viresthe MoA, the outsider suffers).
Indoor Management	Outsiders are not required to know the internal procedures (resolutions, appointments).	Protects the Outsider (If the internal procedure is flawed, the company suffers).

The two doctrines work to strike a balance: the outsider must read the company's constitution (Constructive Notice), but they do not have to check if the company followed its own internal rules (Indoor Management).

Statutory Support

While the Companies Act, 2013, does not explicitly codify the Turquand Rule, its spirit is preserved, particularly in Section 176, which states that the acts of a director are valid even if there were later found to be defects in their appointment.

---

3. Exceptions: When the Doctrine Fails

The protection afforded by the Doctrine of Indoor Management is conditional and is not available in several key circumstances where the outsider is not acting in good faith or is negligent.

A. Knowledge of Irregularity

If the outsider dealing with the company has actual knowledge of the internal irregularity (e.g., they were present when the required resolution was not passed), they cannot claim protection.

• Case Law (Howard v. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co., 1888): A director was aware that the necessary resolution to approve his loan to the company had not been properly passed. The court held that since he was an insider with actual knowledge, he could not use the Turquand Rule to protect his loan.

B. Suspicion or Negligence

If the circumstances surrounding the transaction are so suspicious that they should have prompted a reasonable person to inquire, but the outsider failed to do so, the doctrine will not apply.

• Case Law (Anand Bihari Lal v. Dinshaw & Co., 1946): The plaintiff accepted the transfer of a company's property based on the authority of the company's accountant. The court held that the plaintiff should have inquired into the accountant's authority, as dealing with a mere accountant for property transfer was highly suspicious. The plaintiff was negligent and lost the protection.

C. Forgery

The doctrine does not extend to cases of forgery, as a forged document is legally a nullity (void ab initio). A company cannot be bound by an act that has no legal existence at all.

• Case Law (Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated Ltd., 1906): The company secretary forged the signatures of two directors on a share certificate and issued it. The court held that the holder could not rely on the certificate under the Turquand Rule because the act of forgery was void, and there was simply no true representation from the company.

D. Acts Outside Apparent Authority

If the officer dealing with the outsider performs an act that is clearly outside the apparent or ostensible scope of their authority (e.g., a junior manager signing a multi-crore loan agreement), the outsider cannot assume the act is valid, even if the board supposedly authorized it internally. The Articles must grant the possibility of such authority to the position, otherwise, the exception of negligence applies.