Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. State of Bihar [xvii]– In this case, it was stated that a company is also not allowed to lay claim on fundamental rights on the basis of its being an aggregation of citizens. Once a company is formed, its business is the business of an incorporated body thus formed and not of the citizens and the rights of such body must be judged on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributable to the business of the individual citizens. See, e.g., Henn, Harry G.; Alexander, John R. (1983). Law of Corporations (3ed.). West Group. ISBN 0314092293. , ch 7, 344, n 2 for a list of terms the court uses. They are, mere adjunct, agent, alias, alter ego, alter idem, arm, blind, branch, buffer, cloak, coat, corporate double, cover, creature, curious reminiscence, delusion, department, dry shell, dummy, fiction, form, formality, fraud on the law, instrumentality, mouthpiece, name, nominal identity, phrase, puppet, screen, sham, simulacrum, snare, stooge, subterfuge, tool.

When I close my eyes, I can still see Goyen and my brothers-in-arms falling all around me on that fateful day. English courts have, however, differentiated between the terms “lifting” and “piercing”, for instance, in Atlas Maritime Co SA v Avalon Maritime Ltd (No 1), court stated that “To pierce the corporate veil is an expression that I would reserve for treating the rights and liabilities or activities of a company as the rights or liabilities or activities of its shareholders. To lift the corporate veil or look behind it, on the other hand, should mean to have regard to the shareholding in a company for some legal purpose”, 1991 4 All ER 769, 779, (Staughton LJ).Perpetual Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Michaelson Properties, Inc. 974 F.2d 545 (4th Cir. 1992). [45] The Fourth Circuit held that no piercing could take place merely to prevent "unfairness" or "injustice", where a corporation in a real estate building partnership could not pay its share of a lawsuit bill The Hivemind Invasion of Civilization" is a compendium of esoteric mystery sciences, an invaluable, timeless resource, building a progressive tapestry of revelation upon revelation, LOADED with truly mind-blowing graphics, visuals, & stunning images, deep Universal Secrets, advanced occult symbolism, rich philosophical & existential motifs utilized in Hollywood & pop culture, language, mythology, spiritual mysticism & fundamental laws of nature, astrotheology & the constructs of masonic civilization for individual & collective mastery, as well as control, coercion, confinement & enslavement, but leading us ultimately to sovereignty & liberation from the artifices of the manipulation of reality itself & most importantly, our perception of it!

C Alting, 'Piercing the corporate veil in German and American law - Liability of individuals and entities: a comparative view' (1994–1995) 2 Tulsa Journal Comparative & International Law 187 a b Eisenberg, Melvin A. (2005). Corporations and Other Business Organizations, Cases and Materials (9ed.). Foundation Press. ISBN 1587788799. , ch 4, 171 Gaertner, M.J. (1988). "Reverse Piercing the Corporate Veil: Should Corporation Owners Have It Both Ways". William and Mary Law Review. 30: 667 . Retrieved 9 September 2017.Section 299- This Section gives effect to the following recommendation of the Company Law Committee: “It is necessary to provide that the general notice which a director is entitled to give to the company of his interest in a particular company or firm under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 91-A should be given at a meeting of the directors or take reasonable steps to secure that it is brought up and read at the next meeting of the Board after it is given. [ix] The section applies to all public as well as private companies. Failure to comply with the requirements of this Section will cause vacation of the office of the Director and will also subject him to penalty under sub-section (4). Re Noel Tedman Holdings Pty Ltd., 1967 Qdr 561. See also, Mayson, French & Ryan, Company Law (29th edn, OUP 2012). Notice CC-2012-002" (PDF). Office of Chief Counsel. Internal Revenue Service. 2 December 2011 . Retrieved 9 September 2017. Tort victims and employees, who did not contract with a company or have very unequal bargaining power, have been held to be exempted from the rules of limited liability in Chandler v Cape plc. In this case, the claimant was an employee of Cape plc's wholly owned subsidiary, which had gone insolvent. He successfully brought a claim in tort against Cape plc for causing him an asbestos disease, asbestosis. Arden LJ in the Court of Appeal held that if the parent had interfered in the operations of the subsidiary in any way, such as over trading issues, then it would be attached with responsibility for health and safety issues. [19] Arden LJ emphasised that piercing the corporate veil was not necessary. There would be direct liability in tort for the parent company if it had interfered in the subsidiary's affairs. The High Court before it had held that liability would exist if the parent exercised control, all applying ordinary principles of tort law about liability of a third party for the actions of a tortfeasor. The restrictions on lifting the veil, found in contractual cases made no difference. This jursidction has been settled to play an important role in the human rights cases [20] and. [21] "Single economic unit" theory [ edit ] Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Polan, 939 F. 2d 209 (4th Cir. 1991)". Google Scholar . Retrieved 9 September 2017.

The cases of Tan v Lim, [31] where a company was used as a "façade" (per Russell J.) to defraud the creditors of the defendant and Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne, [32] where an injunction was granted against a trader setting up a business which was merely as a vehicle allowing him to circumvent a covenant in restraint of trade are often said to create a " fraud" exception to the separate corporate personality. Similarly, in Gencor v Dalby, [33] the tentative suggestion was made that the corporate veil was being lifted where the company was the "alter ego" of the defendant. In truth, as Lord Cooke (1997) has noted extrajudicially, it is because of the separate identity of the company concerned and not despite it that equity intervened in all of these cases. They are not instances of the corporate veil being pierced but instead involve the application of other rules of law. Finally, the "fraud exception" was rejected in Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd. [34] Reverse piercing [ edit ] India being one of the top three emerging economies, has been longing for strong and cogent corporate laws that will enable the country’s international trade to conduct its affairs on a par with the western industrialized nations. The proposals in the Bill are expected to act as a catalyst to fostering the growth of the economy. One of the main highlights of this Bill is that it proposes a mechanism for vigilance that will reward whistle blowers. This measure will allow companies to follow transparency at every move they initiate. The authors have mentioned a few provisions which bring in responsibilities and liabilities upon a director. Section 275- Subject to the provisions of Section 278, this section provides that no person can be a director of more than 15 companies at a time. Section 279 provides for a punishment with fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000 in respect of each of those companies after the first twenty. Thus those who enjoy the benefits of the machinery of incorporation have to assure a capital structure adequate to the size of the enterprise. They must not withdraw the corporate assets or mingle their own individual accounts with those of the corporation. The Courts have at times seized upon these facts as evidence to justify the imposition of liability upon the shareholders. Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995), [46] finding insufficient that a parent company so dominated the operations of a subsidiary that the corporate veil should be disregarded.It is possible to lift the veil if there is a relationship of agency. This will require an agreement (either explicit or implicit) that the parties act for each other. Then, provided they have remained within the boundaries of the agency, the principle is bound by the acts of the agent. Occasionally the courts will compromise the principle in Salomon and allow remedies against the shareholders in respect of company liability or against the company for shareholder liability.

see Alexander Schall, The New Law of Piercing the Veil in the UK, ECFR 2016, 549 - 574; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3538410) Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway, 244 N.Y. 602, 155 N.E. 914 (1927). Benjamin Cardozo decided there was no right to pierce the veil for a personal injury victim. Section 127- A director of a company is punishable with imprisonment or fine if a dividend which is declared has not been paid or a warrant which in respect thereof has not been posted within 30 days of the date of declaration. Assmann, Jan (1997). Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-58738-0.The doctrine laid down in Salomon v. Salomon and Salomon Co.Ltd, has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil over the personality of a limited liability company through which the Courts cannot see. But, that is not true. The Courts can and often do draw aside the veil. They can and often do, pull off the mask. They look to see what really lies behind”. Judicial Provisions Or Grounds For Lifting The Veil- In The King v Portus; ex parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia [iv], where Latham CJ while deciding whether or not employees of a company owned by the Federal Government were not employed by the Federal Government ruled that the company is a distinct person from its shareholders. The shareholders are not liable to creditors for the debts of the company. The shareholders do not own the property of the company. proximate cause": as a reasonably foreseeable result of the wrongful action, harm was caused to the party that is seeking to pierce the corporate veil. After Adams v. Cape Industries it seemed that there will need to be an express agency agreement for such a relationship to be found. AVOIDANCE OF WELFARE LEGISLATION- Avoidance of welfare legislation is as common as avoidance of taxation and the approach of the Courts in considering problems arising out of such avoidance is generally the same as avoidance of taxation. It is the duty of the Courts in every case where ingenuity is expended to avoid welfare legislation to get behind the smokescreen and discover the true state of affairs.