Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. In State of U.P. and others vs. Renusagar Power Co. and others, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 59, the Apex Court while dealing with doctrine of lifting of corporate veil observed as follows:-

“66. It is high time to reiterate that in the expanding horizon of modern jurisprudence, lifting of corporate veil is permissible. Its frontiers are unlimited. It must, however, depend primarily on the realities of the situation. The aim of the legislation is to do justice to all the parties. The horizon of the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil is expanding. Here, indubitably, we are of the opinion that it is correct that Renusagar was brought into existence by Hindalco in order to fulfil the condition of industrial licence of Hindalco through production of aluminium. It is also manifest from the facts that the model of the setting up of power station through the agency of Renusagar was adopted by Hindalco to avoid complications in case of take over of the power station by the State or the Electricity Board. As the facts make it abundantly clear that all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35456 and 35462 of 2024 the steps for establishing and expanding the power station were taken by Hindalco, Renusagar is wholly-owned subsidiary of Hindalco and is completely controlled by Hindalco. Even the day-to-day affairs of Renusagar are controlled by Hindalco. Renusagar has at no point of time indicated any independent volition. Whenever felt necessary, the State or the Board have themselves lifted the corporate veil and have treated Renusagar and Hindalco as one concern and the generation in Renusagar as the own source of generation of Hindalco. In the impugned order the profits of Renusagar have been treated as the profits of Hindalco.
67. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the corporate veil should be lifted and Hindalco and Renusagar be treated as one concern and Renusagar's power plant must be treated as the own source of generation of Hindalco and should be liable to duty on that basis. In the premises the consumption of such energy by Hindalco will fall under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Additional Advocate-General for the State relied on several decisions, some of which have been noted.
69. It appears to us, however, that as mentioned the concept of lifting the corporate veil is a changing concept and is of expanding horizons. We think that the appellant was in error in not treating Renusagar's power plant as the power plant of Hindalco and not treating it as the own source of energy. The respondent is liable to duty on the same and on that footing alone; this is evident in view of the principles enunciated and the doctrine now established by way of decision of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India, (supra) that in the facts of this case Sections 3(1)(c) and 4(1)(c) of the Act are to be interpreted accordingly. The persons generating and consuming energy were the same and the corporate veil should be lifted. In the facts of this case Hindalco and Renusagar were inextricably linked up together.

Renusagar had in reality no separate and independent existence apart from and independent of Hindalco.”

25. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner is 100% subsidiary of its parent company. For the purpose of satisfying the Bid Qualification Requirements, the petitioner is solely relying on the credentials of its parent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.35456 and 35462 of 2024 company. For the purpose of supplying coal as per the tender condition, the petitioner is solely relying on the supply of coal from the parent company's coal mines as evidenced by the letter submitted by the petitioner in Schedule-G. In the light of these facts, this Court finds that there is force in the submission made by the respondents 2 and 3 that petitioner company was floated by its parent holding company as 100% owned subsidiary just to over come the illeffect of termination order.