Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)Utair Aviation vs Jagson Airlines Limited & Another on 13 April, 2012
43. Hence, what essentially the plaintiff submits is that defendants No.1
to 8 though said to be different entities are essentially one entity having
unity of interest and common business goals. It is urged that the said
defendants are attempting to use the device of various corporations to
frustrate the existing contract entered into initially between plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 under the guise of a corporate veil. It is further sought to be
urged that keeping in view the conduct of defendants No.1 to 8 each one of
them are bound by the terms and conditions of the shareholders agreement
especially clause 1.3. This binding nature is said to have arisen on account
of conduct explicit and implicit of the defendants though it may be that
initially no privity of the contract existed. It is urged that by conduct, privity
has been created between plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 8 and further that
this aspect would be a mix question of law and fact. For this reliance is
placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Utair Aviation v. Jagson
Airlines Limited and Another (supra). To the same extent is the ratio of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Godhra Electricity
Co.Ltd.
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd vs Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors on 6 July, 2010
In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention
Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; 2007 SCC 417 the Supreme Court held as
follows:-
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
23. Essentially relief sought in the two applications are interlinked. Order
VII Rule 11 CPC provides amongst others that a plaint can be rejected if it
does not disclose any cause of action. The Supreme Court in the case of
Sopan Sukdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner;AIR 2004 SC
1801 held that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not justify rejection of any
particular portion of the plaint.
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
In Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of
Bombay; (1992)2SCC524 the Supreme Court held as follows:-
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974
and Anr. vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr.(supra).
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
"62. Mr Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy speaking for this Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and
Ors. MANU/SC/0015/1985: [1985] Supp 3 SCR 909 had
emphasized that the corporate veil should be lifted where the
associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality,
part of one concern. It is neither necessary nor desirable to
enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible,
since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other
provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct,
the involvement of the element of the public interest, the effect on
parties who may be affected.