Lifting Of Corporate Veil Case Study

Great Essays
Introduction and Statement of Facts

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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 2009-Ohio-2728 -- Limited Partnership The law firm Roetzel & Andress (R&A) represented Schneider personally, not her companies. R&A told Schneider, who is the majority shareholder of the numerous companies, to stop selling unregistered notes. Schneider ignored and continued fraudulently selling the notes. It was argued R&A committed malpractice in connection with its representation of Schneider’s various companies by failing to " 'counsel ' its clients to cease their participation in a fraudulently sourced building project. The Court found R&A did not commit malpractice as to the companies because Schneider, as president and majority owner, controlled this business entity, and her knowledge of the true nature of her illicit financing scheme must be imputed to her company.…

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    The charges are what the government issues to begin the criminal process Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanov are faced with several charges in the original indictment. The charges include that of Conspiracy. This charge is filed by the government against both Martha Stewart and Bacanovic. The government alleges that both Stewart and Bacanovic willfully and knowingly worked together to make false statements in the stock-trading scandal. Stewart lied when she told the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and federal prosecutors she had prearranged with Bacanovic to sell ImClone when it fell well below $60 per share.…

    • 1956 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Main Line, however, argued there was no distinction between Basinger and Mighty Wind. Main Line said because the services bargained for were Basingers, when Basinger breached, Mighty Wind breached as well and that Mighty Wind was simply a “tax configuration.” The trial court said that everything that was done by Mighty Wind was done by Basinger and Basinger and Mighty Wind were not separated. The jury concluded both Basinger and Mighty Wind entered into oral and written contracts and had breached them. The defendants and appellants are appealing against the $8 million ruling against them from the judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of Main Line Pictures. This is in response to the breach of contract by Main Line and Kim Basinger in the production of the movie “Boxing Helena.” The defendants and appellants are appealing because they disagree on the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of the damages.…

    • 946 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    There could be many reasons that entitle the court to pierce the corporate veil such as breach of duty, fraud, or evasion of liability (Sheppard, 2013). Nevertheless a majority circumstances can be summarized as improperly use of corporate form. For example, in Trustor v Smallbone the director breached the fiduciary duty by transferring the money of the firm he serviced into another firm he owned and controlled. Lord Sumption said that if the second company was formed for the receipt of the money from the first company and if the company form was used to conceal the facts, then ‘the veil’ can be lift. It is inappropriate use of corporate form that causing breach of duty and then entitling Sir Andrew Morrit VC to disregard corporate legal personality.…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hence, in SMC law, the question is what kind of duties can be played by SMC in society? The seams object behind SMC is to increase or to grow the economic activities with controllable risk. However, as SMC is made up of single member it will not be responsible to anyone in the firm management as opposed to other member of company. Lack in accountability of single directors causes various issues to social, economical and environmental responsibilities in Pakistan by SMC that are affecting our corporate sector. As in SMC a single member is owner he can conduct meetings at any time and there is no one in the company to check mismanagement that affects the firm activity.…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nevsun’s vice president denied any form of harmful behavior that may be done with the use of the revenue made by the company. He only discussed how Nevsun has positively affected the social and economy life in Eritrea. In the documentary they used evidence to show that these rumors had some validation by going to talk to workers that had gone through miss treatment and investigating the terrorist attacks that had happened. Two workers that were the ones filling a law suit against the company were the ones to talk about what was really happening in the mine. The results, finding very little and having the vice president deny any sort of connection with any of it.…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    According to the case, there was no evidence to prove that Rich’s and Wachovia acted in concert with each other or with any other person or entity to accomplish an unlawful end or a lawful end by unlawful means. “The underlying tort of conversion is absent, and thus there can be no liability for conspiracy” (www.law.justia.com). Reasoning 1. Review of case shows that it was no evidence to show that there was any conspiracy to the check being mailed to the wrong address. 2. The person that the check was for never received it.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One such example is the Satyam scam which came into light in 2009. The Satyam scam otherwise known as the Indian Enron scam has brought into light the consequences of the director’s breach of duty. Soon after the Satyam scam came into light after a confession letter from the chairman, Ramalinga Raju, the shareholders in the United States filed a class action suit for claiming damages from the company as well as to audit the firm. While their counterparts in the United States claimed damages, the Indian shareholders were left without any sort of remedy under the then existing Companies Act, 1956. This resulted in the Indian shareholders suffering a huge loss.…

    • 2089 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    A company is recognized as a separate legal entity and yet in reality, it is an association of persons who are in fact beneficiaries of the corporate property. It is therefore understood that corporate personality of the company can be used as a medium of committing fraud or illegal acts. Now, there is arises a paradoxical problem pertaining to the important legal question : Who accords for the liability? Who can be held responsible? The notion of corporate personality does not obviously create liability on artificial persons.…

    • 1938 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    A parent company has no liability to cover up its subsidiary's debt because of those principle. S 46 states that if the share of subsidiary company is hold by other company more wholly owned shares. Tort Liability is obtain from the salomon's case that a group company is no liable from all debts subsidiary and generally is separate from holding company because it not under control directly from its company. Application : Both companies…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays