INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of indoor management was evolved 150 years ago. It is also known as
Turquands rule. The role of doctrine of indoor management is opposed to of the role of
doctrine of constructive notice. The doctrine of constructive notice protects company
against outsiders whereas the doctrine of indoor management protects outsiders against
the actions of company. This doctrine also is a possible safeguard against the possibility
of abusing the doctrine of constructive notice.

The person entering into a transaction with the company only needed to satisfy that his
proposed transaction is not inconsistent with the articles and memorandum of the
company. He is not bound to see the internal irregularities of the company and if there
are any internal irregularities than company will be liable as the person has acted in the
good faith and he did not know about the internal arrangement of the company.

The rule is based upon obvious reason of convenience in business relations. Firstly, the
articles of association and memorandum are public documents and they are open to
public for inspection. Hence an outsider is presumed to know the constitution of a
company, but what may or may not have taken place within the doors that are closed to
him.[1]

ORIGIN OF THE DOCTRINE

This doctrine was laid down in the case of Royal British Bank V. Turquand,[2]

The directors of the company borrowed some money from the plaintiff. The article of
company provides for the borrowing of money on bonds but there was a necessary
condition that a resolution should be passed in general meeting. Now in this case
shareholders claims that as there was no such resolution passed in general meeting so
company is not bound to pay the money. It was held that the company is bound to pay
back the loan. As directors could borrow but subjected to the resolution, so the plaintiff
had the right to infer that the necessary resolution must have been passed.

It was held that Turquand can sue the company on the strength of the bond. As he was
entitles to assume that the necessary resolution had been passed. Lord Hatherly
observed- Outsiders are bound to know the external position of the company, but are not
bound to know its indoor management.

Sections 290 provides for the validity of acts of directors- acts done by a person as a
director shall be valid, notwithstanding that it may afterwards be discovered that his
appointment was invalid by reason or any defect or disqualification or had terminated by
virtue of any provisions contained in this act or in the articles:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to give validity to acts done by a
director after his appointment has been shown in the company to be invalid or to have
terminated

The object of the section is to protect persons dealing with the company outsiders as
well as members by providing that the acts of a person acting as director will be treated
as valid although it may afterward be discovered that his appointment was invalid or that
it had terminated under any provision of this act or the articles of the company. [3]