Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Narne Estates Private Ltd. & Anr. vs Dr. E. Surender Rao & Anr. on 24 August, 2017

Shyam Sundar Sharma vs Shribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. on 4 February, 2019

The decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in the case of New Horizons Ltd. (supra) and the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) indicate  that the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil depend primarily on the realities of the situation and the aim of the legislation to all the parties and it depend primarily on the  realities of the situation. In other words, there is no straight-jacket formula and the lifting the veil is permissible depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuhu Bhattacharya (Mukherjee) vs Shribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. on 4 February, 2019

The decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in the case of New Horizons Ltd. (supra) and the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) indicate  that the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil depend primarily on the realities of the situation and the aim of the legislation to all the parties and it depend primarily on the  realities of the situation. In other words, there is no straight-jacket formula and the lifting the veil is permissible depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Jayeeta Mitra vs Shribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. on 4 February, 2019

The decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in the case of New Horizons Ltd. (supra) and the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) indicate  that the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil depend primarily on the realities of the situation and the aim of the legislation to all the parties and it depend primarily on the  realities of the situation. In other words, there is no straight-jacket formula and the lifting the veil is permissible depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tuhin Narayan Bose vs Shribhumi Realty Pvt. Ltd. on 4 February, 2019

The decisions referred by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant in the case of New Horizons Ltd. (supra) and the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) indicate  that the doctrine of lifting of corporate veil depend primarily on the realities of the situation and the aim of the legislation to all the parties and it depend primarily on the  realities of the situation. In other words, there is no straight-jacket formula and the lifting the veil is permissible depending upon the facts and the circumstances of the case.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Sri Khudiram Mondal on 1 August, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil ", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Sri Chandan Mondal on 1 August, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil ", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Sri Devendra Kr. Pandey on 1 August, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil ", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Sri Goma Joshi on 1 August, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil ", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Tapan Kr. Dey on 5 September, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samit Dutta vs Ravi Prakash Sinha & Others on 5 September, 2019

"27. The conclusion would not be different even if the matter is approached purely from legal stand point. It cannot be disputed that, in law, a company is a legal entity distinct from its members. It was sole laid down by the House of Lords in 1897 in the leading case of Salomon -vs. - Salomon & Company. Even since this decision has been followed by the Courts in England as well as in this country. But there has been inroads in the doctrine of corporate personality propounded in the said decision by its statutory provisions as well as by judicial pronouncements. By the process, commonly described as "lifting the veil ", the law either goes behind the corporate personality to the individual members or ignores the separate personality of each company in favour of the economic entity constituted by a group of associate companies. This Court is adopted when it is found that the principle of corporate personality is two fragrantly opposed to justice, convenience or the interest of the Revenue. (see: Gower's Principles of Modem Company Law,  4th Edn, P112) This concept, which is described as " piercing the veil " in the United States, has been thus put by Sanborn, J in U.S. -vs. - Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co. " When the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, the law will regard the Corporation as an association of persons".
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next