Doctrine of Indoor Management (the Companies Act, 2013): According to the “doctrine of indoor management” the outsiders, dealing with the company though are supposed to have satisfied themselves regarding the competence of the company to enter into the proposed contracts are also entitled to assume that as far as the internal compliance to procedures and regulations by the company is concerned, everything has been done properly.

They are bound to examine the registered documents of the company and ensure that the proposed dealing is not inconsistent therewith, but they are not bound to do more. They are fully entitled to presume regularity and compliance by the company with the internal procedures as required by the Memorandum and the Articles. This doctrine is a limitation of the doctrine of “constructive notice” and popularly known as the rule laid down in the celebrated case of Royal British Bank v. Turquand. Thus, the doctrine of indoor management aims to protect outsiders against the company.

The above mentioned doctrine of Indoor Management or Turquand Rule has limitations of its own. That is to say, it is inapplicable to the following cases, namely:

b) Suspicion of Irregularity: The doctrine in no way, rewards those who behave negligently. Where the person dealing with the company is put upon an inquiry, for example, where the transaction is unusual or not in the ordinary course of business, it is the duty of the outsider to make the necessary enquiry.

c) Forgery: The doctrine of indoor management applies only to irregularities which might otherwise affect a transaction but it cannot apply to forgery which must be regarded as nullity.