Analysis of Incorrect Statements Regarding Company Law Principles

This solution analyzes the provided statements concerning the doctrine of ultra vires, the memorandum of association, and the doctrine of indoor management to identify the incorrect ones.

Statement (a) Analysis

The statement claims that in Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway Co., the House of Lords observed that the doctrine of ultra vires, as explained in the Ashbury case, should not be maintained. This is incorrect. While the Great Eastern Railway case did interpret the doctrine of ultra vires more liberally, allowing companies to perform acts necessary or incidental to their main business, it did not state that the strict doctrine established in Ashbury should be entirely abandoned or "not maintained." The doctrine was refined rather than discarded.

Statement (b) Analysis

The statement suggests that Section 13 (i) (c) of the Companies Act provides for incidental objects that do not need to be stated in the memorandum. This is incorrect. Section 13(1)(c) of the Companies Act mandates that the memorandum must state the objects for which the company is proposed to be incorporated and any matter considered necessary in furtherance of those objects. Incidental objects fall under the latter category and are implicitly or explicitly required to be addressed as part of the company's objectives.

Statement (c) Analysis

This statement asserts that if incidental objects are not stated in the memorandum, they would not be allowed by the principle of reasonable construction. This is incorrect. The principle of reasonable construction is precisely used to interpret the memorandum broadly and allow acts that are reasonably incidental or necessary for achieving the main objects, even if not explicitly listed. If an object is clearly incidental and necessary, reasonable construction may permit it, contrary to the statement's claim.

Statement (d) Analysis

The statement claims that the doctrine of indoor management operates to protect insiders against the company. This is factually incorrect. The doctrine of indoor management, established in Royal British Bank v. Turquand, is designed to protect outsiders who deal with the company in good faith. It presumes that the company's internal affairs have been conducted properly. Insiders, who are presumed to know the company's internal workings, are not protected by this doctrine.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, statements (a), (b), (c), and (d) are all incorrect interpretations of the relevant legal principles and statutory provisions. Therefore, the correct option is the one stating that all these statements are incorrect.