व्यावसायिक कानुन – Business & Corporate Law MCQ

व्यावसायिक कानुन: प्रश्न र उत्तर

सही लागेको विकल्पमा थिच्नुहोस्। सही भए हरियो, गलत भए रातो देखिन्छ; ३ सेकेन्डपछि सही उत्तर र व्याख्या देखिन्छ।

सही: ० / ०

221. Under company law, including Nepal's Companies Act, 2063, a special resolution generally requires the support of at least:

     क51% of the votes खTwo-thirds of all directors ग75% (three-fourths) of the votes of shareholders present घAll shareholders
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

222. A resolution passed at a general meeting by a simple majority of votes cast by members present in person or by proxy is:

     कAn ordinary resolution खA special resolution गA unanimous resolution घA board resolution
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

223. In Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver, directors made a profit by taking up shares in an opportunity that came to them as directors. They were held:

     कLiable to account to the company for the profit, even though they acted in good faith खEntitled to keep the profit because they acted honestly गLiable only if the company suffered a loss घGuilty of a criminal offence
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

224. In Percival v Wright, directors bought shares from members without disclosing pending takeover negotiations. The court held that:

     कDirectors owe fiduciary duties to every shareholder individually खThe sale was void for fraud गThe directors must pay compensation to the company घDirectors owe their fiduciary duties to the company, not to individual shareholders
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

225. The rule in Foss v Harbottle states that, where a wrong is done to a company:

     कAny individual shareholder may always sue in his own name खOnly creditors may sue गThe proper plaintiff is the company itself, and the majority decides घDirectors are personally liable to each shareholder
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

226. In Macaura v Northern Assurance Co, a sole shareholder insured timber owned by his company in his own name. His insurance claim failed because:

     कTimber cannot be insured खA shareholder has no insurable interest in the company's property गThe fire was caused deliberately घThe company had been wound up
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

227. In Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd, it was held that a person who controlled a company as its main shareholder and director:

     कCould never be employed by his own company खWas personally liable for all company debts गCould also be its employee, because the company is a separate legal person घWas a partner of the company
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

228. In Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co, the court lifted the veil of a UK-registered company to determine whether it had:

     कPaid its taxes correctly खEnemy character during wartime, based on who controlled it गIssued shares at a discount घComplied with its memorandum
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

229. In Gilford Motor Co v Horne, a former employee formed a company to evade a restrictive covenant. The court:

     कUpheld the company's separate personality and refused relief खWound up the employer company गDeclared the covenant void घLifted the corporate veil, treating the company as a mere sham
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।

230. The doctrine of constructive notice in company law means that persons dealing with a company are:

     कNever bound by the company's documents खRequired to inspect the company's minute books गDeemed to know the contents of its public documents such as the memorandum and articles घProtected from all irregularities inside the company
     💬 टिप्पणी / गल्ती रिपोर्ट (०)

     छलफल / प्रश्न उत्तरमा गल्ती छ

     पठाउनुहोस्

     टिप्पणी जाँचपछि मात्र देखिन्छ।