Life Insurance Corporation v. Escorts Ltd. &Ors
3
, the Apex Court of India held that “the corporate veil maybe lifted where the statute itself contemplates lifting the veil,
or fraud or improper conduct is intended to be prevented, or a taxing statute or a beneficent
statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as
to be, in reality, part of one concern.”
1
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 HL. Dr. G.K.Kapoor, Company Law and Practice, (20
th edn. Taxman’s 2019).
3
Life Insurance Corporation v Escorts Ltd & Ors (1986) 1 SCC 264.
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA CORPORATE LAW Ii Thus, it is established that the Courts may lift the corporate veil in the event when the device of incorporation has been utilised for purposes that are improper and illegal improper purpose.
4
For example cases that involve defrauding creditors, circumvention of law or a statute or the evasion of an existing obligation for that matter. The “Doctrine of Single Economic Entity doctrine (SEE Doctrine, however, exists beyond this very concept of the laws governing companies that considers companies have a separate legal personality”.
5
This doctrine of single economic entity recognises that even distinct and entirely different juristic persons may, in some cases, act and behave as one unit and are therefore considered the part of a single economic unit. The objective of this research project is to provide a brief overview about the applicability of the separate legal entity doctrine and the SEE Doctrine. It also aims to provide the applicability of the SEE doctrine of company law in the antitrust laws thus protecting companies from the ambit of Sec dealing with anti-competitive agreements.
4
Branda Hannigan, Company Law, (2
nd edn. Oxford 2014). Ibid.
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA CORPORATE LAW Ii bTHE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE SEPARATENESS ENVISAGED UNDER THE
Share with your friends: |
