Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.31 seconds)
Welworth Software Private Limited vs Sun Distribution Services Pvt . Ltd. & ... on 17 August, 2020 cites

New Horizons Ltd vs Union Of India on 9 November, 1994

19. Drawing reference to the replies filed by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 before the learned Tribunal, he submits that there was no denial on behalf of the petitioner and/or respondent no.2 to the plea of the respondent no.1 of them being under common control. He submits that Mr.Kailasam took control of the respondent no.2 only after the execution of the Asset Transfer Agreement and such Asset Transfer Agreement was clearly a sham in order to deny the liability of the broadcasters owed by the respondent no.2. He submits that where the corporate veil is being used to perpetuate fraud or deny contractual liabilities, the Court is empowered to lift the corporate veil. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India and Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613, Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar WP(C) No.4877/2020 Page 14 Gupta & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 1; New Horizons Limited & Anr. v Union Of India and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 478.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 468 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Shristi Communication Network vs Technobile Systems Pvt Ltd & Anr on 10 July, 2019

20. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 further submits that the petitioner was fully aware of the case of collusion set up by the respondent no.1 against it. As the learned Tribunal is to be guided by the Principles of Natural Justice and is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, lacuna in the pleadings, if any, alone cannot be taken as a ground for challenging the Impugned Order. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shristi Communication Network v. Technobile Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9149.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs Skipper Construction Company(P) Ltd. & ... on 6 May, 1996

In DDA v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd.,(1996) 4 SCC 622, the Supreme Court held that "the concept of corporate entity WP(C) No.4877/2020 Page 19 was evolved to encourage and promote trade and commerce and not to commit illegalities or to defraud people. Where, therefore, the corporate character is employed for the purpose of committing illegality or for defrauding others, the court would ignore the corporate character and will look at the reality behind the corporate veil so as to enable it to pass appropriate orders to do justice between the parties concerned."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 540 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012

19. Drawing reference to the replies filed by the petitioner and the respondent no.2 before the learned Tribunal, he submits that there was no denial on behalf of the petitioner and/or respondent no.2 to the plea of the respondent no.1 of them being under common control. He submits that Mr.Kailasam took control of the respondent no.2 only after the execution of the Asset Transfer Agreement and such Asset Transfer Agreement was clearly a sham in order to deny the liability of the broadcasters owed by the respondent no.2. He submits that where the corporate veil is being used to perpetuate fraud or deny contractual liabilities, the Court is empowered to lift the corporate veil. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India and Anr., (2012) 6 SCC 613, Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar WP(C) No.4877/2020 Page 14 Gupta & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 1; New Horizons Limited & Anr. v Union Of India and Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 478.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 350 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1   2 Next