LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL

 Lifting of Corporate Veil

The following are the cases where company law disregards the principle of corporate personality or the principle that the company is a legal entity distinct and separate from its shareholders or members:

(1) To determine the character of the company i.e. to find out whether co-enemy or friend: In the law relating to trading with the enemy where the test of control is adopted. The leading case in this point is Daimler Co. Ltd. vs. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co., if the public interest is not likely to be in jeopardy, the Court may not be willing to crack the corporate shell. But it may rend the veil for ascertaining whether a company is an enemy company. It is true that, unlike a natural person, a company does not have mind or conscience; therefore, it cannot be a friend or foe. It may, however, be characterised as an enemy company, if its auairs are under the control of people of an enemy country. For this purpose, the Court may examine the character of the persons who are really at the helm of auairs of the company.

(2) To protect revenue/tax: In certain matters concerning the law of taxes, duties and stamps particularly where question of the controlling interest is in issue. [S. Berendsen Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Inland Revenue]

     (i) Where corporate entity is used to evade or circumvent tax, the Court can disregard the entity      [Juggilal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR (SC)].

    (ii) In [Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit], it was held that the company was not a genuine company at all but merely the assessee himself disguised under the legal entity of a limited company. The assessee earned huge income by way of dividends and interest. So, he opened some companies and purchased their shares in exchange of his income by way of dividend and interest. This income was transferred back to assessee by way of loan. The Court decided that the private companies were a sham and the corporate veil was lifted to decide the real owner of the income.

(3) To avoid a legal obligation: Where it was found that the sole purpose for the formation of the company was to use it as a device to reduce the amount to be paid by way of bonus to workmen, the Supreme Court upheld the piercing of the veil to look at the real transaction (The Workmen Employed in Associated Rubber Industries Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The Associated Rubber Industries Ltd., Bhavnagar and another).

Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry ltd., v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd.: The facts of the case are that“A Limited” purchased shares of“B Limited” by investing a sum of ` 4,50,000. The dividend in respect of these shares was shown in the profit and loss account of the company, year after year. It was taken into account for the purpose of calculating the bonus payable to workmen of the company. Sometime in 1968, the company transferred the shares of B Limited, to C Limited a subsidiary, wholly owned by it. Thus, the dividend income did not find place in the Profit & Loss Account of A Ltd., with the result that the surplus available for the purpose for payment of bonus to the workmen got reduced.

Here a company created a subsidiary and transferred to it, its investment holdings in a bid to reduce its liability to pay bonus to its workers. Thus, the Supreme Court brushed aside the separate existence of the subsidiary company. The new company so formed had no assets of its own except those transferred to it by the principal company, with no business or income of its own except receiving dividends from shares transferred to it by the principal company and serving no purpose except to reduce the gross profit of the principal company so as to reduce the amount paid as bonus to workmen.

(4) Formation of subsidiaries to act as agents: A company may sometimes be regarded as an agent or trustee of its members, or of another company, and may therefore be deemed to have lost its individuality in favour of its principal. Here the principal will be held liable for the acts of that company.

In the case of Merchandise Transport Limited vs. British Transport Commission (1982), a transport company wanted to obtain licences for its vehicles, but could not do so if applied in its own name. It, therefore, formed a subsidiary company, and the application for licence was made in the name of the subsidiary. The vehicles were to be transferred to the subsidiary company. Held, the parent and the subsidiary were one commercial unit and the application for licences was rejected.

(5) Company formed for fraud/improper conduct or to defeat law: Where the device of incorporation is adopted for some illegal or improper purpose, e.g., to defeat or circumvent law, to defraud creditors or to avoid legal obligations. [Gilford Motor Co. vs. Horne]