8/30/23, 2:31 PM Kotla Venkataswamy Vs Chinta Ramamurthy (1934):Absence Of Constructive Notice Of MOA And AOA Cannot Be An

LAWYERSCLUBINDIA 

Writs and PIL's Practical Training by Dr. Kush Kalra.

Register Now!

Home / Judiciary / Others

Kotla Venkataswamy Vs Chinta Ramamurthy

(1934):Absence Of Constructive Notice Of MOA And
AOA Cannot Be An Excuse To Claim Relief For
Outsiders
Ashwitaa Shetty ,
 13 September 2021  Share  Bookmark

Court :
Madras High Court
Brief :
This judgement dealt with the Doctrine of Constructive Notice. As per this doctrine, every person
dealing with the company is deemed to have read the MOA and AOA and understood them in
their true perspective.
Citation :
AIR 1934 Mad 579

Key Takeaways
As per the Companies Act,2013, a person dealing with the company is presumed to have read
the Memorandum of Association(MOA) and Articles of Association(AOA) and understood
them in their true perspective.
The Articles of Association have clearly stated that all documents executed by the company
require signatures of the Managing Director, Secretary and one Working Director for its
validity.
This is based on the Doctrine of Constructive Notice. It implies that the outsiders and
everyone dealing with the company should have read these documents and made sure that
the contracts are in conformity with their provisions.
It is also based on the principle that 'ignorantia juris non-excusat,' or 'ignorance of the law is
no excuse’.

Date of Judgement
16 January, 1934

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/kotla-venkataswamy-vs-chinta-ramamurthy-1934-absence-of-constructive-notice-of-moa-and-aoa-can… 1/6
8/30/23, 2:31 PM Kotla Venkataswamy Vs Chinta Ramamurthy (1934):Absence Of Constructive Notice Of MOA And AOA Cannot Be An

Bench:
Justice Curgenven

Parties
Plaintiff-Kotla Venkataswamy
Defendant-Chinta Ramamurthy

Subject
This judgement dealt with the Doctrine of Constructive Notice. As per this doctrine, every person
dealing with the company is deemed to have read the MOA and AOA and understood them in
their true perspective. This judgement affirms the fact that the plaintiff cannot seek exemption on
the ground that he had not read the Articles and was thus not aware of the provisions of the MOA
and AOA.

Legal Provisions
As per Section 399 of the Companies Act,2013, the persons who are not members can inspect the
records and documents of the company available with the registrar of the company. The MOA and
AOA are public documents and outsiders should enter into contracts only after careful
examination of documents.

Overview
The plaintiff held a mortgage bond executed by company and it was signed by the Working
Director and Secretary of the company. The plaintiff asserted that debt and interest were
regularly paid by the company to the plaintiff.
The company went into voluntary liquidation and the mortgaged property was sold.
The plaintiff filed a suit in the lower court to enforce her right in the property, but the
contention of the plaintiff was rejected by the court, and her subsequent appeal was filed
before the Madras High Court.

Issues
Does the plaintiff have any remedy for enforcing her mortgage deed?
Whether the mortgage deed was duly executed and would the company be liable to the
plaintiff?

Judgement Analysis
The plaintiff contended that since the Managing Director was under prosecution for criminal
charges, his signatures could not be obtained. The court rejected the contention of the
plaintiff and stated that the mere fact that Managing Director was not available would not
make the execution by Secretary and Working Director valid.
The court citing the case of Royal British Bank v.Turquand, observed that if the bond was not
duly executed, but the plaintiff had every reason to believe that the documents were duly

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/kotla-venkataswamy-vs-chinta-ramamurthy-1934-absence-of-constructive-notice-of-moa-and-aoa-can… 2/6
8/30/23, 2:31 PM Kotla Venkataswamy Vs Chinta Ramamurthy (1934):Absence Of Constructive Notice Of MOA And AOA Cannot Be An

executed based on the fact that any irregularity is not visible on the face of the document /
bond, then in such a casethe company will be liable.
The court further added that based on the facts of the case it is clear that the plaintiff had not
read the MOA and AOA and thus he had no constructive notice that the documents required
the signatures of Director, Secretary and Managing Director, which indicates the document
was not duly executed and hence the plaintiff has no remedy.
The court, while rejecting the contention of the plaintiff, stated that had the plaintiff read the
MOA and AOA, she would have known that the mortgage bond required signatures of
Managing Director, Secretary and Working Director.

Conclusion
The effect of constructive notice is that it protects the company from outsiders. An outsider who
deals with companies is deemed to have constructive notice of the contents of the documents of
the company.Accordingly,if a person deals with a company and the transactions turns to be
beyond the powers of the company or its officers as contained in these documents, he cannot
enforce it against the company and he shall be held personally liable to bear the consequences of
such dealings.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

"Loved reading this piece by Ashwitaa Shetty?

Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles,
Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

 Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group

Published in Others  Report Abuse

Views : 7015

← Previous Next →

Comments

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/kotla-venkataswamy-vs-chinta-ramamurthy-1934-absence-of-constructive-notice-of-moa-and-aoa-can… 3/6