As for Tektra, it is for the Governor-General that there is no room for dispute regarding the nationality of Joint-Stock Companies, because if a company is registered in England, the certificate of registration is sufficient proof of its nationality. I cannot recall a single case that was brought before the English Governor-General where the nationality of a company was disputed, even though it was considered English in all respects, but was registered abroad with the intention of evading the provisions of English laws. However, there is often a dispute about the place of the company or its headquarters when it is necessary to collect the prescribed income tax. It appears that the English Governor-General has, for a long time, followed rules very similar to those in the French Governor-General's rulings and the laws of Belgium and Italy. See, for example, what Nelson said in his book "Private International Law," page 228, and refer to the cases he cited. He said: "The original seat of the company is considered to be the place where its true and actual business is conducted, not its apparent one, i.e., the place where its trade and business are actually carried out (see also the rulings mentioned in the footnote) (6)."

The Governor-General recently ruled in another case (7) that the seat of the company is where its original board of directors meets and where its original decisions are made, not where its original office is located, nor where it actually carries out the business for which it was established.

Therefore, if a company is registered in English territories and its business operations are in other countries, and the Governor-General of these latter countries rules that it is void because it was not established in accordance with their laws, it appears that the English Governor-General would have jurisdiction to liquidate this company, and it is likely that he would do so because it is just and equitable – see Article 129 of the Companies Act of 1908 (8) (Case of (Renss v. Bos. 5. H. L. 176 Let us now consider the rights of foreign companies.

(6) Attorney General v. Alexander L. R. 10 Exch. 20. Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson, Calcutta jute Mills v. same, I Exch. D. 428 and Alexandria Water Co. v. Musgrave 1883, II. Q. B. D. 174 C. A. (7) De Beers Consolidated Mines Ld. v. Howe C. A. 1905, 2 K. B. 612. (8) The court may rule on the company's seat.

Article IV – If the court deems it just to dissolve it. For example, if the company engages in illegal activities.