The fundamental attribute of corporate personality, from which all other consequences flow if that the corporation is a legal entity distinct from its members. Hence, it is capable of enjoying rights and of being subjects to duties which are not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members. In other words, it has a “legal personality” and is often described as an artificial person in contrast with a human being, a natural person.
However, corporate officers, directors, shareholders and promoters who indulge in mala fide transactions under the garb of corporate identity and remained immune had to be made liable in some situations as the case may be. The doctrine of “Lifting of Corporate Veil” is the …show more content…
The reasons for rejection were mentioned in the letter and those were as follows:
M/s. Digital Radio(Mumbai) Broadcasting Ltd. is a part of Sun Group owned by Maran family. The security clearance is denied on the basis of the following inputs against Shri Dayanidhi Maran, Shri Kalanithi Maran and Sun TV: -
i. Prosecution of Shri Dayanidhi Maran and Shri Kalanithi Maran in Aircel-Maxis case by CBI with the allegation of receipt of Rs. 549.96 cr. as illegal gratification and other related charges. ii. The Enforcement Directorate has charged Shri Dayanidhi Maran and Shri Kalanithi Maran under the PMLA on the allegation of laundering and an amount of Rs. 5.5 billion in the Aircel-Maxis matter. iii. The CBI has charged Shri Dayanidhi Maran for setting up 300 illegal telephone lines at the residence of Shri Kalanithi Maran to facilitate Sun TV services, thereby gaining an illegal pecuniary advantage of Rs. 443 cr.
Ministry of Home Affairs has stated that the aforementioned economic offences are of serious nature adversely impinging upon economic integrity of the country.
Both the parties, being aggrieved by this fact approached the court of …show more content…
Mr. Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Mumbai company submitted that clause 3.8 of NIA must be read along with clause 3.2.1(b). He submitted that clause 3.2.1(b) stipulates a disqualification for a company if it is 'controlled' by a person 'convicted' of an offence involving, inter alia, money laundering or terrorist activities. But, clause 3.8 speaks only of 'the company' and its 'Directors on the Board'. It does not use the expression 'controlled by a person'. He further submitted that in respect of the so-called inputs in respect of the Marans, nobody has been convicted as yet. In fact, the charges have not been framed by any court in any of the said three cases. And, it is only in the CBI case in the "Aircel- Maxis" matter that a charge-sheet has been filed. The other two cases are still under investigation. So, the question of disqualification under clause 3.2.1(b) does not arise. Insofar as clause 3.8 is concerned, it was submitted by Mr. Sibal that it only speaks of "the company" and its "directors", which expressions do not cover either Shri Dayanidhi Maran or Shri Kalanithi Maran or Sun