Notification

  • Not Able to Find What You’re Looking For? Speak to us directly! Our experts are here to guide you through any queries or challenges.

    Speak to Us

Memorandum of Association – MoA Clauses, Format & Types

The Memorandum of Association (MOA) is one of the most essential documents in the company incorporation process, forming the foundation for a company’s legal existence and governance. Just as the Constitution is the bedrock of a nation, the MOA acts as the charter document for a business entity. It not only outlines the scope of the company’s objectives but also governs its operations, ensuring compliance with the Companies Act of 2013.

Incorporating a company in India requires submission of several key documents, and the MOA is among the most important. It provides transparency, defines the company’s operations, and protects the interests of stakeholders, including shareholders, creditors, and potential investors.

What is the Memorandum of Association (MOA)?

The full form of MOA is Memorandum of Association, and it is the foundational legal document that specifies the scope of the company’s operations. It outlines the company’s objectives, powers, and the rights and obligations of its members. Without a properly drafted MOA, a company cannot perform beyond the boundaries set by this document, and any act outside of these boundaries is considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) and therefore invalid.

The contents of memorandum of association serve as a guide for all external dealings of the company, making it crucial for anyone wishing to engage with the company to understand its terms. It is a public document, accessible to all, and is required for registering a company with the Registrar of Companies (ROC).

Key Clauses of the Memorandum of Association (MOA)

Mandated by Section 4 of the Companies Act, 2013, every company is legally required to frame and register a Memorandum of Association (MOA) upon its incorporation. This crucial document forms an integral part of the corporate registration process for any newly formed company in India. The MOA acts as the company’s charter, defining its fundamental constitution and the scope of its operations. It establishes the relationship between the company and the outside world.

As per the Companies Act, 2013, there are six fundamental and mandatory clauses that must be meticulously captured in the MOA:

  • 1. Name Clause: This clause unequivocally specifies the full and official name of the company. It is paramount that the chosen name is unique and does not bear any resemblance to the name of any existing company or a registered trademark, as per the provisions of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014. For private limited companies, the name must invariably end with the suffix “Private Limited”, signifying their restricted transferability of shares and limited liability. Conversely, for public limited companies, the name must conclude with the term “Limited”, indicating their ability to invite public subscription for shares. This clause also dictates that the name must not be undesirable in the opinion of the Central Government.
  • 2. Registered Office Clause (Situation Clause): This clause precisely mentions the state in which the company’s registered office is to be located. While it initially only specifies the state, the exact address of the registered office must be communicated to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) within 30 days of incorporation or commencement of business. The state mentioned in this clause is crucial as it determines the geographical jurisdiction of the Registrar of Companies (ROC) under which the company will fall. This dictates where all statutory filings and legal proceedings related to the company will occur. The registered office serves as the official address for all communications from regulatory authorities and the public.
  • 3. Object Clause: One of the most expansive and important sections, the Object Clause meticulously defines the entire scope of the company’s operations. It is segregated into three distinct categories to provide granular clarity:
    • Main Objectives: These explicitly state the primary business activities the company intends to undertake upon its incorporation. They represent the core purpose for which the company is established. For instance, a technology company might have a main objective “to develop, market, and sell innovative software solutions and digital platforms.”
    • Incidental or Ancillary Objectives: These are activities that are directly related to, necessary for, or naturally flow from the attainment of the main objectives. They support and facilitate the core business without being the primary business themselves. Examples include “to acquire, construct, or lease land and buildings necessary for the company’s operations,” “to borrow or raise money to finance business activities,” “to enter into contracts and agreements incidental to the company’s business,” or “to engage in research and development related to its products.”
    • Other Objectives (Optional): This section allows for the inclusion of activities that, while not directly connected to the main business at the time of incorporation, the company may wish to pursue in the future for diversification or expansion. These objectives must also be lawful and clearly defined. For example, an “other objective” could be “to invest in shares, debentures, or other securities of any other company or body corporate.” It is critical that any business activity undertaken by the company that falls outside the ambit of these clearly stipulated objectives is considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) and, therefore, legally unauthorized and invalid, potentially leading to significant legal repercussions for the company and its directors.
  • 4. Liability Clause: This clause precisely specifies the extent of liability of the company’s members (shareholders). Its phrasing depends on the type of company:
    • Companies Limited by Shares: This is the most common type, where the liability of members is strictly limited to the unpaid amount on their shares. For example, if a shareholder holds shares worth ₹100 each and has paid ₹60, their maximum liability is ₹40 per share in the event of liquidation. Their personal assets beyond this unpaid amount are protected. The clause typically states: “The liability of the members is limited.”
    • Companies Limited by Guarantee: In this case, the liability of members is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its winding up. This amount is specified in the MOA. This type of company is often formed for non-profit purposes.
    • Unlimited Companies: For companies with unlimited liability, members may be required to pay beyond their subscribed shares to meet the company’s debts in the event of winding up. Their personal assets are not protected and can be used to settle company liabilities. The clause explicitly states: “The liability of the members is unlimited.”
  • 5. Capital Clause: This pivotal clause details the company’s authorized capital, also known as nominal or registered capital. This represents the maximum amount of capital that the company is legally permitted to raise through the issue of shares. It also outlines how this authorized capital is divided into shares of various denominations (e.g., ₹10 per share, ₹100 per share). While the company may not issue all its authorized capital immediately, it cannot issue shares beyond this limit without formally increasing its authorized capital by altering the MOA through a special resolution. The clause also specifies the number of shares and their face value. For example, “The Authorised Share Capital of the Company is INR 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) divided into 1,00,000 (One Lakh) equity shares of INR 10/- (Rupees Ten only) each.”
  • 6. Association/Subscription Clause: This clause is a crucial component that signifies the formal formation of the company. It contains the declaration by the initial subscribers who collectively agree to form the company and subscribe to a certain number of shares. This clause legally binds the initial members to the company. It typically includes:
    • A declaration by the subscribers stating their desire to form a company in pursuance of the MOA.
    • An agreement by each subscriber to take a specified number of shares in the company. Each subscriber to the MOA must subscribe to at least one share.
    • Detailed Particulars of Subscribers: The MOA must include comprehensive details for each subscriber:
      • For Individual Subscribers: Full name (including father’s/spouse’s name), complete residential address, occupation/description, PAN (Permanent Account Number), nationality, the number of shares subscribed, and their signature.
      • For Body Corporate Subscribers (e.g., another Company or LLP): The Corporate Identity Number (CIN) or registration number, the full legal name of the body corporate, its registered office address, email address, and the name, designation, PAN, and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the authorized representative who signs on behalf of the body corporate, along with a certified copy of the board resolution authorizing such subscription.

The MOA, with its meticulously drafted clauses, serves as a foundational legal document that defines the company’s existence, its powers, and its operational framework, providing transparency and legal certainty to all stakeholders.

Understanding “Ultra Vires” in Company Law

The concept of “ultra vires” is a cornerstone of company law, particularly critical in defining the boundaries of a company’s actions. Latin for “beyond the powers,” an act is considered ultra vires if it falls outside the scope of the powers explicitly or implicitly granted to the company by its Memorandum of Association (MOA) and the Companies Act, 2013.

The MOA serves as the company’s charter, publicly defining its objectives and the limits of its authority. When a company engages in an activity that is not covered by its stated main, incidental, or other objectives, that act is deemed ultra vires.

Key Implications of an Ultra Vires Act:

  • Void Ab Initio: An ultra vires act is void from the very beginning (void ab initio). This means it has no legal effect whatsoever, as if it never happened. The company cannot be bound by such an act, and neither party can enforce any contract or obligation arising from it.
  • Non-Ratification: Crucially, an ultra vires act cannot be ratified or made valid even by the unanimous consent of all shareholders. This strict rule protects shareholders and creditors by ensuring that the company’s funds and resources are used strictly for the purposes for which the company was formed.
  • Personal Liability of Directors: Directors who authorize or undertake ultra vires activities can be held personally liable for any losses incurred by the company as a result. This acts as a significant deterrent against exceeding defined powers.
  • Protection for Stakeholders: The doctrine of ultra vires safeguards the interests of shareholders by preventing their investment from being used for unauthorized purposes. It also protects creditors by ensuring that the company’s assets are not misapplied, which could jeopardize their claims.
  • Injunction: Any member or depositor of the company can apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to seek an injunction to restrain the company from committing or continuing an ultra vires act.

While the Companies Act, 2013, provides some flexibility for incidental activities that are necessary for fulfilling core objectives, the fundamental principle of ultra vires remains vital for upholding corporate governance, accountability, and the integrity of a company’s operations.

Detailed Particulars for MOA Subscribers

The Association/Subscription Clause of the Memorandum of Association is fundamental, containing the details of the individuals or entities who agree to form the company and become its first members. As per the Companies Act, 2013, the following detailed particulars are required for MOA subscribers:

For Individual Subscribers:

Each individual subscribing to the Memorandum must provide the following:

  1. Full Name: The complete name of the subscriber, including their father’s/spouse’s name.
  2. Address: The complete residential address, including the city, state, and pin code. This should be a permanent and verifiable address.
  3. Description/Occupation: A clear mention of their occupation or profession (e.g., businessman, service professional, student, etc.).
  4. PAN (Permanent Account Number): A valid PAN card number is mandatory for Indian citizens.
  5. Nationality: Explicitly state the subscriber’s nationality.
  6. Number of Shares Subscribed: The exact number of shares each subscriber agrees to take. Each subscriber must agree to take at least one share.
  7. Signature: The subscriber must physically sign the Memorandum. In case of an illiterate subscriber, a thumb impression or mark is permissible, which must be described and authenticated by another person.
  8. Identity Proof: While not explicitly mentioned in the clause itself, valid identity proof (e.g., Aadhaar, Passport, Driving License) and address proof (e.g., utility bills) are required to be submitted during the incorporation process for verification.

For Body Corporate Subscribers (e.g., another Company or LLP):

If a body corporate is subscribing to the Memorandum, the following particulars are required:

  1. Corporate Identity Number (CIN) / Registration Number: The CIN for a company incorporated in India, or the registration number for any other body corporate (like an LLP).
  2. Global Location Number (GLN): (Optional) Used to identify the location of the legal entity.
  3. Name of the Body Corporate: The full and legal name of the subscribing body corporate.
  4. Registered Office Address: The complete registered office address of the subscribing body corporate.
  5. Email Address: The official email address of the subscribing body corporate.
  6. Board Resolution: A certified true copy of the Board Resolution of the subscribing body corporate, explicitly authorizing a specific director, officer, or employee to subscribe to the Memorandum of Association of the proposed company and to invest in it.
  7. Name, Designation, PAN, and Digital Signature of Authorized Signatory: The full name, designation (e.g., Director, CEO), PAN, and Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) of the individual authorized by the Board Resolution to sign the Memorandum on behalf of the body corporate.

Why is the Memorandum of Association Important?

The MOA is a critical document because it:

  • Defines the company’s legal framework: The MOA outlines the company’s business objectives, powers, and structure, establishing the rules under which it operates.
  • Protects stakeholders: By providing transparency, the MOA helps protect the interests of shareholders, creditors, and investors.
  • Serves as a reference point: In the event of disputes or legal challenges, the MOA serves as the primary reference for resolving issues related to the company’s operations and governance.

Amendment of the Memorandum of Association (MOA)

The MOA can be amended under Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013, provided that shareholder approval is obtained and the amendment is registered with the Registrar of Companies. However, there are limitations:

  • The Association/Subscription Clause cannot be amended after incorporation.
  • Any changes to the object clause or other key sections require formal approval and legal filings.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with MOA Requirements

Failure to adhere to the legal requirements of the MOA can lead to severe consequences, such as:

  • Rejection of incorporation: If the MOA is not in line with statutory requirements, the incorporation application may be rejected.
  • Restrictions on operations: The company may be prohibited from conducting any business until the MOA is rectified and approved.
  • Legal penalties: Companies may face monetary fines, and directors may be held personally liable for non-compliance with the Companies Act, 2013.

Types of Memorandum of Association Formats (MOA)

The Companies Act, 2013 provides different formats of the MOA based on the type of company being incorporated. These formats are outlined in Schedule 1, Tables A to E:

  • Table A: For companies with share capital.
  • Table B: For companies that are limited by guarantee and do not have share capital.
  • Table C: For companies with share capital but also limited by guarantee.
  • Table D: For unlimited companies without share capital.
  • Table E: For unlimited companies with share capital.

The specific table chosen will depend on the company’s structure and its intended business operations.

How to Register a Memorandum of Association (MOA)

To register a company, the MOA must be submitted to the Registrar of Companies (ROC) along with the Articles of Association (AOA). According to Section 7 of the Companies Act, 2013, the MOA and AOA must be duly signed by the subscribers and must include essential details like:

  • The company’s name, registered office address, and object clauses.
  • The liability clause and capital clause.
  • The details of the initial subscribers who are forming the company.

The MOA also serves as a reference point for investors and creditors to assess the company’s potential and operational scope. It provides transparency, ensuring that the company operates within the legal boundaries defined by its charter document.

Memorandum of Association (MOA) vs. Articles of Association (AOA): A Comprehensive Comparison

While both the Memorandum of Association (MOA) and the Articles of Association (AOA) are foundational documents for any company, serving as its constitutional backbone under the Companies Act, 2013, they play distinct yet complementary roles. Understanding their differences is crucial for comprehending a company’s legal framework and internal governance.

Here’s a direct and comprehensive comparison:

FeatureMemorandum of Association (MOA)Articles of Association (AOA)
Primary RoleExternal Scope & Powers: Defines the company’s relationship with the outside world. It outlines the fundamental conditions and objects for which the company is incorporated. It sets the limits beyond which the company cannot operate.Internal Governance & Rules: Governs the internal management of the company. It lays down the rules and regulations for carrying out the company’s day-to-day operations and achieving its objectives as defined in the MOA.
NatureSupreme Document / Charter: It is the primary and paramount document of the company. Nothing can be done legally that contradicts the MOA. Any act ultra vires (beyond the powers of) the MOA is void.Subordinate Document / Bylaws: It is subordinate to the MOA. The AOA cannot contain anything contrary to the provisions of the MOA or the Companies Act, 2013.
RelationshipDefines the relationship between the company and outsiders (e.g., shareholders, creditors, government).Defines the relationship between the company and its members, and between the members themselves.
Mandatory StatusCompulsory for Every Company: As per Section 4 of the Companies Act, 2013, every company must have an MOA.Generally Compulsory (with exceptions): While generally compulsory, a company limited by shares may adopt Table F of Schedule I of the Companies Act, 2013, as its AOA. However, in practice, most companies draft their own AOA.
ContentContains the six fundamental clauses: 1. Name Clause 2. Registered Office Clause 3. Object Clause 4. Liability Clause 5. Capital Clause 6. Association/Subscription Clause.Contains rules regarding: Share capital and variation of rightsCalls on shares, transfer and transmission of shares Board meetings and general meetings Appointment, powers, duties, and removal of directorsVoting rights and proxies Dividends and reserves Accounts and auditWinding up procedureCommon seal, etc.
AlterationDifficult to Alter: Requires a special resolution passed by shareholders and, in many cases, approval from the Central Government or National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for significant changes (e.g., changes to the object clause).Easier to Alter: Can be altered by passing a special resolution (75% majority) by the shareholders, provided it does not contravene the MOA or the Companies Act.
Binding EffectBinds the company, its members, and outsiders dealing with the company. Outsiders are presumed to have knowledge of the MOA (doctrine of constructive notice).Binds the company and its members. Members are bound to the company, and to each other, by the AOA.
Legal ValidityActs ultra vires the MOA are void ab initio (void from the beginning) and cannot be ratified.Acts ultra vires the AOA are generally voidable but can often be ratified by a special resolution of the shareholders, provided they are intra vires (within the powers of) the MOA.
Public DocumentYes, it is a public document accessible to anyone upon payment of a prescribed fee.Yes, it is also a public document accessible to anyone.

The Real-World Impact of the Memorandum of Association (MOA)

The Memorandum of Association (MOA) is far more than just a legal formality; it’s a living document that profoundly impacts a company’s operations, strategic decisions, and legal standing. Its clauses, particularly the Object Clause, can lead to significant legal challenges or necessitate strategic business pivots if not carefully drafted and adhered to.

Anonymized Real-World Case Studies Illustrating MOA Impact:

  1. Case Study 1: The “Unforeseen” Diversification Challenge (Object Clause)
    • Scenario: “TechInnovate Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” was incorporated with an Object Clause primarily focused on “developing and selling enterprise software for the manufacturing sector.” After five successful years, the company identified a lucrative opportunity in developing mobile applications for the e-commerce industry, which was a distinct business vertical.
    • MOA Impact: Upon due diligence for this new venture, the company’s legal counsel highlighted that the existing Object Clause did not explicitly cover mobile application development for the e-commerce sector. Undertaking this new business without amending the MOA would render the acts ultra vires, exposing the company and its directors to significant legal risks, including potential invalidation of contracts, personal liability for directors, and challenges from shareholders or creditors.
    • Resolution: TechInnovate had to undertake a formal process of altering its MOA, involving a Board Resolution, a Special Resolution by shareholders, and filing the necessary forms with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). This process, while necessary, caused delays in launching the new product line and incurred additional legal and compliance costs. This case underscores the need for a sufficiently broad yet precise Object Clause, or a proactive amendment strategy, to accommodate future business expansion.
  2. Case Study 2: Capital Clause Restraint in Fundraising
    • Scenario: “GreenEnergy Ventures Ltd.,” a public limited company, planned a major fundraising round through a rights issue to expand its renewable energy projects. Their initial projections indicated a need for ₹100 Crores. However, their MOA’s Capital Clause stated an Authorized Capital of only ₹50 Crores.
    • MOA Impact: The company quickly realized they could not issue shares beyond their authorized capital. Proceeding with the rights issue as planned would be ultra vires the Capital Clause, making the share allotment invalid. This put their expansion plans in jeopardy and risked investor confidence.
    • Resolution: GreenEnergy Ventures had to prioritize increasing its authorized capital. This involved convening an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to pass a special resolution for the alteration of the Capital Clause in the MOA, followed by filing Form SH-7 with the ROC and paying additional stamp duty. This process consumed valuable time and resources, highlighting how an under-projected Capital Clause can become a bottleneck for growth.

Detailed Hypothetical Scenarios Demonstrating MOA Clauses in Action:

  • Scenario 1: Name Clause Conflict
    • “Swift Logistics Pvt. Ltd.” is a newly incorporated company. Unbeknownst to its promoters, another company, “Swiftlogistics India Private Limited,” already exists and operates in a related field.
    • MOA Impact: The Registrar of Companies (ROC) would likely reject the incorporation application of “Swift Logistics Pvt. Ltd.” during name approval, citing the resemblance to an existing company name. This is a direct application of the Name Clause requirement for uniqueness and non-resemblance, preventing brand confusion and unfair competition. The promoters would need to propose a new, distinct name.
  • Scenario 2: Registered Office Clause and Jurisdiction
    • “Digital Dreams Inc.” is incorporated with its Registered Office Clause stating “the State of Karnataka.” Initially, its main operations are in Bengaluru. Later, the company decides to open a large branch office in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and wishes to shift its “head office functions” there for operational convenience, without changing its official registered office.
    • MOA Impact: While the company can operate branches anywhere, its legal and regulatory compliance, including all ROC filings, will still fall under the jurisdiction of the ROC, Karnataka. If they formally wish to change their registered office from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu, it would necessitate a significant alteration to the Registered Office Clause in the MOA, requiring a special resolution, confirmation by the Regional Director (RD), and extensive procedural compliance as per the Companies Act, 2013, due to the inter-state shift.
  • Scenario 3: Liability Clause in a Crisis
    • “Innovate Ventures Ltd.” (a company limited by shares) faces severe financial distress and is on the verge of liquidation. Its total liabilities exceed its assets, and there’s a significant unpaid amount on the shares held by its members.
    • MOA Impact: The Liability Clause comes into play directly. The shareholders’ liability is strictly limited to the unpaid amount on their shares. They cannot be compelled to contribute more than what they agreed to pay for their shares, even if the company’s debts far exceed this amount. This protects their personal assets, as defined by the MOA. If it were an “Unlimited Company,” the members’ personal assets would be at risk to cover all company debts.

Treelife’s Role: Assisting with MOA Drafting and Compliance

At Treelife.in, we understand that a well-drafted Memorandum of Association is not just a legal prerequisite but a strategic foundation for your business. Our expertise ensures that your MOA is not only compliant with the Companies Act, 2013, but also tailored to your business vision, minimizing future legal complexities and facilitating smooth growth.

Treelife.in assists with MOA drafting and related legal processes for various business types, including:

  • For Tech Startups (Pvt. Ltd.): We specialize in drafting comprehensive Object Clauses that are broad enough to encompass current software development, SaaS offerings, AI/ML applications, and potential future diversification into fintech, ed-tech, or health-tech, while remaining compliant. We ensure the Name Clause is unique and secure for trademarking.
  • For Manufacturing Companies (Pvt. Ltd. / Ltd.): Our team drafts Object Clauses that clearly define core manufacturing activities, ancillary processes (like R&D, material sourcing, distribution), and potential future expansion into related product lines or services, carefully considering regulatory nuances. We also guide on optimal Capital Clause structuring for scalability.
  • For Service-Based Enterprises (Pvt. Ltd.): Whether it’s consulting, marketing, or professional services, we craft Object Clauses that cover the full spectrum of services offered, along with incidental activities crucial for operational efficiency, such as client acquisition, training, and technology integration.
  • For E-commerce and Retail Ventures: We focus on Object Clauses that comprehensively cover online sales, physical retail, logistics, payment processing, and related digital marketing activities, providing the necessary legal scope for multi-channel operations.
  • For One Person Companies (OPC): We ensure all mandatory clauses are meticulously drafted, including the crucial Nominee Clause as per Section 3 of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying the individual who will become a member in the event of the sole member’s death or incapacity.

How Treelife Assists?

  • Strategic MOA Drafting: Beyond boilerplate templates, we engage in detailed discussions to understand your business model, immediate goals, and long-term aspirations to draft an MOA that strategically supports your growth trajectory.
  • Object Clause Optimization: We help you articulate main, incidental, and other objectives precisely, ensuring they are neither too restrictive (limiting future ventures) nor too vague (leading to legal ambiguity).
  • Compliance and Regulatory Adherence: We ensure every clause adheres strictly to the Companies Act, 2013, and other relevant regulatory frameworks, mitigating the risk of rejection during incorporation or future legal challenges.
  • Subscriber Particulars Verification: We meticulously verify and accurately document all individual and body corporate subscriber particulars, ensuring compliance with Section 7 of the Companies Act, 2013, and preventing common errors that lead to application delays.
  • MOA Alterations and Amendments: As your business evolves, we provide end-to-end support for amending your MOA, whether it’s changing the company name, registered office, object clause, or authorized capital, navigating the required approvals from the Board, shareholders, and regulatory authorities (like ROC or NCLT).
  • Preventing “Ultra Vires” Situations: Our proactive legal counsel helps you identify potential ultra vires risks before they materialize, advising on necessary MOA amendments to keep your operations legally sound.

Conclusion: The Crucial Role of the MoA in Corporate Governance

The MOA is a cornerstone of corporate governance under Indian law, defining the identity, objectives, and operational boundaries of a company. It is not just a legal formality but a critical document that safeguards the interests of stakeholders and ensures the company’s adherence to statutory requirements. For businesses aiming to establish a solid legal foundation, preparing a compliant MOA is the first step toward success. By understanding the importance of the MOA and its key clauses, businesses can ensure they operate within legal boundaries, protect their interests, and avoid penalties for non-compliance.

Dispute Resolution in the Articles of Association (AOA)

Introduction

As part and parcel of a transaction, companies seeking investment provide their investors with certain rights, which are contractually negotiated. These range from receiving periodic reports on the business and financials of the company to representation on the board of directors and the right to be involved in certain key decisions required to be taken by the company in the course of their growth. Such rights are typically requested by investors based on factors such as the nature of the investment (i.e., financial or strategic) and the level of insight into the business, operations and management of the company required. In such transactions, these rights (and the extent) are agreed upon and captured in a shareholders’ agreement (“SHA”) between the parties, whereas the rights and obligations pertaining to the fundraising itself are governed by the investment agreement.

 Typically, investors (especially foreign) and companies/founders agree to arbitrate any disputes arising from the investment agreement or the SHA. However, referring a dispute to arbitration is often not as clear-cut as a contractual agreement between parties. Indian courts have repeatedly been required to provide rulings on whether or not arbitration can be invoked by the parties to a SHA. This issue is complicated further by conflicting judicial precedents which have ultimately resulted in an unclear understanding of the law forming the basis of how parties can agree to arbitrate any disputes.

 In this article Dispute Resolution in the Articles of Association (AOA), we have provided an overview of the contested legal position and our suggestions for navigating the murky landscape, with the fundamental goal of ensuring the parties’ contractually documented intent is protected and legally enforceable.

Relationship between a Shareholders’ Agreement and the Articles of Association (‘AOA’)

What is the AOA?

Similar to how the constitution of India forms the basis of Indian democracy, the memorandum of association (‘MOA’) and AOA form the basis for a company’s legal existence. The MOA can be seen as the constitutional document that lays down the fundamental elements and broad scope within which the company, business, and operations will typically operate. However, it is the AOA that puts in place a ‘rulebook’, prescribing the regulations and by-laws that govern the company and in effect, enshrining and giving effect to the principles of the MOA. 

It is crucial to understand that because a company is seen as a separate legal person, the AOA is a critical document that establishes the legal relationship between the shareholders of the company inter se and with the company. In order to lay the framework for the operations of the company, an AOA will include provisions (in accordance with applicable laws) that: 

(i)    regulate internal affairs and operations of the company; 

(ii)   provide clarity on procedures the company must follow; 

(iii)  govern the issue/buyback of securities and clarify the legal rights and obligations of shareholders holding different classes of securities; and 

(iv)  legitimize the authority of the board of directors and their functions. 

It is, therefore, a reasonable presumption that any action undertaken by a company must be authorised by the AOA/MOA. Any amendment or alteration to these documents would not only require the assent of the board, but also of the shareholders (i.e., members of the company), and requires filing with the competent Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act, 2013. While these procedures are in place primarily to protect the shareholders from mischief by the company, the lengthy process involved in altering the AOA serves to highlight how essential a document it is for a company’s action to hold legal justification.  

How does the shareholders’ agreement typically become enforceable? 

Often in transaction documents, a critical mechanism that enables the enforcement of the investor rights agreed in the SHA is captured in the investment agreement, where as part of the conditions required to be satisfied upon receipt of the investment amount by the company, the company, and founders must also ensure that the AOA is suitably amended to codify the investor rights. 

However, the legal justification for this action in itself finds a conflict between two different schools regarding the enforceability of provisions from the SHA that have not been incorporated into the AOA: 

(i) The “incorporation” view – the prominent authority for this view is the ruling of the High Court of Delhi in World Phone India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. WPI Group Inc. USA (the “World Phone Case”)[1], where it was held that a board resolution passed without considering an affirmative voting right granted to a shareholder under a joint venture agreement, was legally valid in light of the company’s AOA, which contained no such restriction. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan (the “Rangaraj Case”)[2] and subsequent decision of the Bombay High Court in IL&FS Trust Co. Ltd. v. Birla Perucchini Ltd. (the “Birla Perucchini Case”)[3], the Delhi High Court was of the view that the joint venture agreement could not bind the company unless incorporated into the AOA. 

The Rangaraj Case is of particular interest in this school of thought because while the issue dealt with share transfer restrictions, the Supreme Court held that it was evident from the provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 that the transfer of shares is a matter regulated by the AOA of the subject company and any restriction not specified in the AOA was not binding on the company or its shareholders. Crucially, the World Phone Case poses a problem in the legal interpretation of the “incorporation” view because the Delhi High Court has carried the ratio of the Rangaraj Case to a logical conclusion and observed that even where the subject company is party to an SHA, the provisions regarding management of affairs of the company cannot be enforced unless incorporated into the AOA. 

(ii)   the “contractual” view – the prominent authority for this view is the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v Union of India (the “Vodafone Case”)[4], where the Supreme Court disagreed with the ratio in the Rangaraj Case, without expressly overruling it, and held that freedom of contract includes the freedom of shareholders to define their rights and share-transfer restrictions. This was found to not be in violation of any law and therefore not be subject to incorporation within the AOA. This has also been supported by the Delhi High Court in Spectrum Technologies USA Inc. v Spectrum Power Generation[5] and in Premier Hockey Development Pvt. Ltd. v Indian Hockey Federation[6]. In fact, in the latter case, the Delhi High Court was of the view that the subject company, being party to both an SHA and a share subscription and shareholders agreement containing an obligation to modify the AOA to incorporate the SHA, was conclusive in binding the subject company to the same despite an absence of incorporation into the AOA. 

How can this fundamental disagreement be reconciled?

It is difficult to reconcile the issues caused by conflicting rulings from the same judicial authority. Given that the circumstances of each case provide scope for situation-specific reasoning, we cannot conclusively say one view is preferred, or more appropriate, over the other. Further, where the courts have stopped short of conclusively overruling previous judgments (for instance the Supreme Court on the Vodafone Case only disagreed with the ratio of the Rangaraj Case), the result is an unclear understanding of the legal position regarding the enforceability of SHA without incorporation in the AOA.   

It is also pertinent to note that the issues in the above rulings also deal with the enforceability of certain shareholder rights that have been contractually agreed upon (such as affirmative votes or share transfer restrictions). By contrast, dispute resolution is a mechanism contractually agreed upon between the parties in the event of any dispute/breach of the SHA and cannot be characterized as a “right” of any shareholder(s), in the true sense of the word. However, in light of the conflicting principles guiding the “incorporation” and “contractual” views, the lack of clarity extends to the inclusion of dispute resolution in the AOA simply to make the intent of parties to approach arbitration, enforceable. 

Incorporation of arbitration clauses

Flowing from the “incorporation” view, the Delhi High Court, relying on the Rangaraj Case, World Phone Case, and the Birla Perucchini Case, held in Umesh Kumar Baveja v IL&FS Transportation Network[7] that despite the subject company being a party to the SHA, it was the AOA that governed the relationship between the parties and that since they did not contain any arbitration provision, the parties could not be referred to arbitration. A similar ruling was passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai in Ishwardas Rasiwasia Agarwal v Akshay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.[8], where it was held the non-incorporation of the arbitration clause into the AOA of the subject company was fatal to the request for a reference to arbitration, despite findings that the dispute was contractual in nature and arbitrable. 

A second line of reasoning flowing from the “contractual” view has attempted to uphold the contractual intent of the parties reflected in an SHA. In Sidharth Gupta v Getit Infoservices Pvt. Ltd.[9], the Company Law Board, Delhi was required to rule on the reference to arbitration. Relying on the facts that the SHA had been incorporated verbatim into the AOA and the subject company was a party to the SHA, the Company Law Board rejected the argument from an “incorporation” view and remarked on the importance of holding shareholders “to their bargain” when significant money had been invested on the basis of the parties’ understanding recorded in the SHA. It is pertinent to note in this case, that the Company Law Board had been directed by the Supreme Court to dispose of the case without being influenced by the decisions of the Delhi High Court. This led the Company Law Board to not consider the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the World Phone Case as binding. 

An unusual third line of reasoning has also been provided by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in EIH Ltd. v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.[10]. In this case, a dispute regarding a breach of AOA was referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause of the constitutive joint venture agreement to which the resultant company was not a party. The High Court held that the joint venture agreement and the AOA of the subject company were part of the same transaction, where the primary contractual relationship was contained in the joint venture agreement, and that the AOA functioned as a “facilitative sister agreement” to the same. Given the critical nature of the AOA to the internal governance of the subject company as a juristic person however, this line of reasoning where the AOA is relegated to a “sister agreement” is likely to not stand the test of a comprehensive judicial review of this issue.

Navigating the landscape and concluding thoughts

The startup growth trajectory continues to contribute significantly to the Indian economy, with funding crossing USD 5.3 billion in the first six months of 2024 and over 915 investors participating in funding deals[11]. This will see a proportional rise in investor-company disputes, and when reference to arbitration is contractually agreed but not enshrined in the SHA, this can lead to further delays at the stage of dispute resolution, where the competent court would be required to first rule on whether the reference to arbitration can even be enforced. However, the conflicting judicial precedents are only the tip of this murky iceberg; party autonomy is a fundamental guiding principle to any reference to arbitration. Where judicial precedent sets the grounds for formal incorporation into the AOA as a condition to enforcing this party intent, however, a question of whether the parties’ contractually documented intent is being ignored, is raised. 

Further, the legal basis for the “incorporation” view is itself under question. A key component from the Rangaraj Case is that the Supreme Court based its ruling on the issue of share transfer restrictions and basis the provision of Companies Act, 1956 that stated a company’s shares are “transferable in the manner provided by the articles of the company”. This position has also been questioned by a larger bench of the Supreme Court in the Vodafone Case and by academics and has been distinguished and disregarded by lower High Courts on slim grounds. Consequently, the judicial precedent has been applied to a non-share transfer context as well, forming the basis for the incorporation view on arbitration clauses.  

In conclusion, while it is our opinion that a contract-centric approach is more reflective of party intent, especially with reference to arbitration, the insistence on incorporating provisions of the SHA into the AOA would pose a potential roadblock in the event the parties are required to approach dispute resolution. Pending clarity from the judiciary on this issue, the best approach to dealing with this situation is adopting a conservative approach of incorporating dispute resolution provisions within the AOA, preventing delays in the event of a dispute between the parties. 


[1] World Phone India Pvt. Ltd. v. WPI Group Inc. USA 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1098.

[2] V.B. Rangaraj v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan (1992) 1 SCC 160.

[3] IL&FS Trust Co. Ltd. v. Birla Perucchini Ltd. 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1004

[4] Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 613.

[5] Spectrum Technologies USA Inc. v. Spectrum Power Generation, 2000 SCC OnLine DEL 472

[6] Premier Hockey Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Hockey Federation, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2621

[7] Umesh Kumar Baveja v. IL&FS Transportation Network, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6436

[8] Ishwardas Rasiwasia Agarwal v. Akshay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., C.A. 328/2013 in CP 117/2013 (Compay Law Board, Mumbai Bench) (Unreported).

[9] Sidharth Gupta v. Getit Infoservices Pvt. Ltd., C.A.128/C-II/2014 in CP No. 64(ND)/2014 (Company Law Board, New Delhi Bench) (Unreported).

[10] EIH Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Arb Case 60/2005 (H.P. H.C.) (Unreported).

[11] https://inc42.com/buzz/at-5-3-bn-indian-startup-funding-stays-flat-yoy-in-h1-2024/#:~:text=According%20to%20Inc42’s%20’H1%202024,the%20first%20half%20of%202024.

For Customer Support

Mumbai | Delhi |
Bangalore | GIFT City

Speak to Us!

We respond within 60 minutes.

    Your information is confidential and secure

    For Customer Support

    Mumbai | Delhi |
    Bangalore | GIFT City

    Fill out the form to unlock the full report!

    Image