---
title: "DUOMATIC PRINCIPLE, HOW IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED?"
date: 2022-05-23
author: "Dinesh Gupta"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/commercialcorporate/duomatic-principle-how-it-can-be-established/
---

# DUOMATIC PRINCIPLE, HOW IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED?

Posted On - 23 May, 2022 •

By - [Dinesh Gupta](https://www.indialaw.in/people/dinesh-gupta/ "Posts by Dinesh Gupta") and [Abha Shah](https://www.indialaw.in/people/abha-shah/ "Posts by Abha Shah")

[![india law](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/india-law.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/india-law.jpg)

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari held in a recent judgment[1](#sdfootnote1sym) that the Duomatic Principle is applicable even in the Indian context which states that ‘Strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts if the same is consented by all members.’

The Duomatic principle is derived from common law whereby a company’s shareholders can informally give approval through unanimous consent without the need to hold a general meeting The Court added that the principle can be applied only in such cases where there are bona fide transactions and fraud is a clear exception.

**Related Facts of the Issue Raised**

Dr. Renuka Dalta, Dr. Vijay Kumar Dalta (late), and G.V. Rao were directors of M/s Biological E. Ltd, as on 20th March 2013. G.V. Rao resigned by submitting a letter on 6th April 2013, and later he withdrew his resignation on 9th April 2013.

The letter of withdrawal of the resignation was reviewed by the board in a meeting on 9th April 2013. The letter was on the board meeting. Dr. Renuka Dalta made no protest in terms of the the attendance of Dr. G.V. Rao in the board meeting. Dr. Renuka was also part of the board meetings conducted on 22nd August 2013 and 25 Septmber 2013. She did not protest for the continuation of Mr. G.V. Rao as a director in any of the meeting.

Later, Dr. Renuka made a complaint to the Company Law Board that the board meetings were illegal and stated that an attempt was made to increase the members in the company, so that it is ensured that she does not hold enough shareholding in order to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the petition but the Company appeal filed by Dr. Renuka was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

In the Appeal before the Supreme Court, one of the question was that whether the Duomatic Principle is applicable in the present case as the issue of resignation of Dr. G.V Rao is lapsed because he continued as a director in the company in the ligh of the acquiescence of this by Dr. Renuka.

**Observations of the Court**

The Court stated that the principle was derived from the decision in Re: Duomatic Ltd., [1969] 2 Ch. 365. It noted that *“The Duomatic Principle can be briefly stated as ‘anything the members of a company can do by formal resolution in a general meeting, they can also do informally, if all of them assent to it.’”*

Referring to the decision of Lord Devey in Salmon v. Salmon Co. Ltd., [1897] AC22, (“Salmon’s case”), the Court stated, that it was held that “a company is bound in a matter intra vires by the unanimous agreement of its members”.

“*The aforesaid Principle emanating from Salmon’s Case has found its utility across various aspects of company law such as the Duomatic Principle, Doctrine of Indoor Management, etc. This Principle has its origin in common law and is applicable even in the Indian context,”*it added.

Referring to the observations made in Bowthorpe Holdings Ltd. v. Hills, [2002] EWHC 2331 (Ch), the Court further noted that, in the above-mentioned context, it notes that the application of the Duomatic principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved.

It also noted that *“Fraud is a clear exception to the application of these principles, be it the Duomatic Principle or Doctrine of Indoor Management.”*

The Court further stated that *“The thrust of the Duomatic Principle is that strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts if the same is consented by all members. In this case at hand, there is overwhelming evidence to show that respondent No. 1 had accepted Mr. G.V. Rao back into the Board and her conduct clearly shows that the resignation dated 06.04.2013 was clearly not accepted.”*

The Court observed that G.V. Rao never seized to be a Director of the Company in view of the acquiescence by Dr. Renuka as he withdrew his resignation before it was accepted. It further stated that the High Court has clearly fallen into error by not considering the aspect of the application of the Duomatic Principle.

**Duomatic Principle, how to establish?**

Duomatic Principle is an exception, and can be quite contentious. Hence, it is prudent to use formal shareholder resolution, than trying to invoke the Principle. Following must be established to apply Duomatic Principle:

The consent of shareholder must be unanimous to the matter

The consent must be given by shareholders in full knowledge of the relevant matter, in other words; and

The transaction should be bonafide, for instance it shall not results into any fraud such as a mode to overcome moratorium under insolvency laws.

[1](#sdfootnote1anc) Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479 | CA 2776 OF 2022 | 6 April 2022

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/commercialcorporate/duomatic-principle-how-it-can-be-established//pdf/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---