The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is as well settled as the Salomon,  AC 22 principle itself. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., (1986) 1 SCC 264, this Court held: “Generally and broadly speaking, we may say that the corporate veil may be lifted where a statute itself contemplates lifting […]Read more "Piercing / Disregarding the Corporate Veil III"
3 Judges in Balwant Rai Saluja implicitly questioned the grounds on which the SC had previously lifted the corporate veil and correctly held that the law on the point has in recent times crystallized around the six requirements set out by Munby J. in Ben Hashem (approved by Lord Sumption in Prest v. Petrodel Resources). 2 Judges in […]Read more "Piercing the Corporate Veil II"
SC in Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, Kanpur, AIR 1968 SC 488 had the occasion to consider the meaning of the expression ‘entertain’ in the context of The Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948. It was held that the expression has the meaning of ‘admitting to consideration’. An appeal under […]Read more "Deposit under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act"
Text Source: IndiaCorpLaw, UV “Background The separate legal personality of a company is a feature that has made that business form the most popular by a mile. However, the separate legal personality is not sacrosanct and is subject to limitations, as courts use the legal tool of piercing the corporate veil to disregard the separation […]Read more "Piercing the Corporate Veil I"
Section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) prescribes the “procedure for inquiry of complaints under Section 19”. If the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) on receipt of information received under Section 19 is of the opinion that there exists a prima facie case, it must direct the Director General (“DG”) to investigate. The DG, on receipt of […]Read more "Section 26 of the Competition Act"