1
COMPANY LAW
TOTAL SLIDES 42
1/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
Where a fraudulent & dishonesty is made of the
legal entity, the individuals concerned will not be
allowed to take shelter behind the corporate
personality. The court will break through the
corporate shell & apply the principle of what is
known as “lifting of or piercing through the
corporate veil.
 What is Lifting Corporate Veil:
www.seribangash.com
2/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
1. A company in the eye of law is regarded as an
entity separate and distinct from its members. Any of
its members can enter into contracts with the company
in the same manner as with any other individual.
www.seribangash.com
3/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
2. Further a shareholder or member of a company
cannot be held liable for the acts of the company even
if he holds the entire share capital. The company’s
money and property belong to the company, and not to
the shareholder.
3. There is a veil between share holders / members
and company.
www.seribangash.com
 Salomon vs Salomon:
4/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Salomon vs Salomon:
5/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Salomon vs Salomon:
6/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
7/42
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
1. The principle of differentiating the legal entity of the
company from that of its shareholders may be
referred as corporate veil.
2. If the legal entity of the corporate body is misused
for fraudulent purpose , the individuals concerned
will not be allowed to take shelter behind the
corporate entity of the company.
www.seribangash.com
Court may lift the corporate veil on
following grounds:
8/42
EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF
CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
1.Determination of Enemy Character of a
Company.
9/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
10/42
1. Daimler Co ltd was incorporated in England for the
purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in
Germany by a German Company.
2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in
Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans
resident in Germany.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
11/42
3. During the first world war Diamler Co ltd company
commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The
house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an
enemy company for the purpose of trading because its
effective control was in enemy hands.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
12/42
4. Accordingly the company was debarred
from maintaining the action. It would be
against public policy to allow alien enemies to
trade.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler Co Ltd Vs Continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
2.Where Company is a Sham
13/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
14/42
1. Horne entered into an agreement with his employer
company that after the termination of the employment
he would not solicit his employer’s. customer for a
certain period of time.
2. Soon after the termination of his employment he
formed a company of which the two shareholders were
his wife & one another person.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933)
www.seribangash.com
15/42
3. The company sent out circulars to customers of his
former employer injunctions was granted against
Horne & Against company he has formed restraining
them from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933)
www.seribangash.com
16/42
4. The court held the company was a mere sham for
the Horne to commit a breach of his agreement against
Solicitation.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933)
www.seribangash.com
3.Prevention of Fraud & Improper Conduct
17/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
18/42
1. Lipman had contracted to sell his land to jones, but
later changed his mind.
2. To evade the contract , he formed a company &
sold his land to it.
3. The court held the seller of land & the company
were one & the same entity, &made him sell his
land to Jones.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Jones Vs Lipman
www.seribangash.com
4.Where company is acting as the agent of
the shareholders
19/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
20/42
1. A British company was formed with a capital of 100
shares, out of 90 shares were held by an American
the directors of USA film Company, & 10 shares
were held by another director, a British subject.
2. The company produce a film called “Monsoon” the
production of which was financed by company.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Re F.G Films Ltd 1953
www.seribangash.com
21/42
3. The court refused to agree that the film was made
by British company , the company was merely the
nominee or agent of USA film company.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Re F.G Films Ltd 1953
www.seribangash.com
5. Protection of Revenue
22/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
23/42
1. D was a wealthy man getting huge dividend & interest
income. In order to avoid super tax, he formed four
private companies & transferred his investments in part
to each of the four companies in exchange of their
shares.
2. Dividends received were credited in the account of the
company & the amount was handed back to him as a
loan.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Sir Dinshaw Mancekjee Petit
www.seribangash.com
24/42
3. Thus he divided his income in four parts to to avoid
tax liability.
4. The court held that as the companies did no
business, the four companies were formed purely &
simply as a means of avoiding tax.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Sir Dinshaw Mancekjee Petit
www.seribangash.com
6. Avoidance of Welfare Legislation
25/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
26/42
1. Daimler Co ltd was incorporated in England for the
purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in
Germany by a German Company.
2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in
Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans
resident in Germany.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
27/42
3. During the first world war Diamler Co Ltd company
commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The
house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an
enemy company for the purpose of trading because its
effective control was in enemy hands.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
28/42
4. Accordingly the company was debarred
from maintaining the action. It would be
against public policy to allow alien enemies to
trade.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler Co Ltd Vs Continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
7. Protecting Public Policy
29/42
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
30/42
1. Daimler Co ltd was incorporated in England for the
purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in
Germany by a German Company.
2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in
Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans
resident in Germany.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
31/42
3. During the first world war Diamler Co ltd company
commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The
house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an
enemy company for the purpose of trading because its
effective control was in enemy hands.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
32/42
4. Accordingly the company was debarred
from maintaining the action. It would be
against public policy to allow alien enemies to
trade.
COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
 Daimler Co Ltd Vs continental Tyre
Rubber Co Ltd.
www.seribangash.com
1.Reduction of numbers of Members below the
Statutory Limit
33/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
1.Reduction of numbers of Members below the
Statutory Limit
34/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
2.Liability for the fraudulent conduct of business
35/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
3.Liability for Ultra Vires Acts
36/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
4.Investigation of Ownership of Company
37/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
5. Mis- Description of Company’s Name
38/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
6. Mis- Statement in Prospectus
39/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
7. Failure to Refund Application Money
40/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
7. Failure to Refund Application Money
41/42
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION
OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
www.seribangash.com
42/42
WWW.SERIBANGASH.COM
 https://seribangash.com/bermuda-triangle-umkown-
mystery-of-life/
For More PowerPoints Presentations
& Blogs Please Visit…
 http://seribangash.com/power-point-of-t-shirt-printing-
machine/
 https://seribangash.com/barber-shop-business-
complete-guide-for-beginners/
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation

Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation

  • 1.
  • 2.
  • 3.
    1/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATEVEIL Where a fraudulent & dishonesty is made of the legal entity, the individuals concerned will not be allowed to take shelter behind the corporate personality. The court will break through the corporate shell & apply the principle of what is known as “lifting of or piercing through the corporate veil.  What is Lifting Corporate Veil: www.seribangash.com
  • 4.
    2/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATEVEIL 1. A company in the eye of law is regarded as an entity separate and distinct from its members. Any of its members can enter into contracts with the company in the same manner as with any other individual. www.seribangash.com
  • 5.
    3/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATEVEIL 2. Further a shareholder or member of a company cannot be held liable for the acts of the company even if he holds the entire share capital. The company’s money and property belong to the company, and not to the shareholder. 3. There is a veil between share holders / members and company. www.seribangash.com
  • 6.
     Salomon vsSalomon: 4/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
  • 7.
     Salomon vsSalomon: 5/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL
  • 8.
     Salomon vsSalomon: 6/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 9.
    7/42 LIFTING OF CORPORATEVEIL 1. The principle of differentiating the legal entity of the company from that of its shareholders may be referred as corporate veil. 2. If the legal entity of the corporate body is misused for fraudulent purpose , the individuals concerned will not be allowed to take shelter behind the corporate entity of the company. www.seribangash.com
  • 10.
    Court may liftthe corporate veil on following grounds: 8/42 EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 11.
    1.Determination of EnemyCharacter of a Company. 9/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 12.
    10/42 1. Daimler Coltd was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in Germany by a German Company. 2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans resident in Germany. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 13.
    11/42 3. During thefirst world war Diamler Co ltd company commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an enemy company for the purpose of trading because its effective control was in enemy hands. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 14.
    12/42 4. Accordingly thecompany was debarred from maintaining the action. It would be against public policy to allow alien enemies to trade. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler Co Ltd Vs Continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 15.
    2.Where Company isa Sham 13/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 16.
    14/42 1. Horne enteredinto an agreement with his employer company that after the termination of the employment he would not solicit his employer’s. customer for a certain period of time. 2. Soon after the termination of his employment he formed a company of which the two shareholders were his wife & one another person. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933) www.seribangash.com
  • 17.
    15/42 3. The companysent out circulars to customers of his former employer injunctions was granted against Horne & Against company he has formed restraining them from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933) www.seribangash.com
  • 18.
    16/42 4. The courtheld the company was a mere sham for the Horne to commit a breach of his agreement against Solicitation. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Gilford Motors Co Ltd Vs Horne (1933) www.seribangash.com
  • 19.
    3.Prevention of Fraud& Improper Conduct 17/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 20.
    18/42 1. Lipman hadcontracted to sell his land to jones, but later changed his mind. 2. To evade the contract , he formed a company & sold his land to it. 3. The court held the seller of land & the company were one & the same entity, &made him sell his land to Jones. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Jones Vs Lipman www.seribangash.com
  • 21.
    4.Where company isacting as the agent of the shareholders 19/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 22.
    20/42 1. A Britishcompany was formed with a capital of 100 shares, out of 90 shares were held by an American the directors of USA film Company, & 10 shares were held by another director, a British subject. 2. The company produce a film called “Monsoon” the production of which was financed by company. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Re F.G Films Ltd 1953 www.seribangash.com
  • 23.
    21/42 3. The courtrefused to agree that the film was made by British company , the company was merely the nominee or agent of USA film company. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Re F.G Films Ltd 1953 www.seribangash.com
  • 24.
    5. Protection ofRevenue 22/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 25.
    23/42 1. D wasa wealthy man getting huge dividend & interest income. In order to avoid super tax, he formed four private companies & transferred his investments in part to each of the four companies in exchange of their shares. 2. Dividends received were credited in the account of the company & the amount was handed back to him as a loan. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Sir Dinshaw Mancekjee Petit www.seribangash.com
  • 26.
    24/42 3. Thus hedivided his income in four parts to to avoid tax liability. 4. The court held that as the companies did no business, the four companies were formed purely & simply as a means of avoiding tax. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Sir Dinshaw Mancekjee Petit www.seribangash.com
  • 27.
    6. Avoidance ofWelfare Legislation 25/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 28.
    26/42 1. Daimler Coltd was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in Germany by a German Company. 2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans resident in Germany. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 29.
    27/42 3. During thefirst world war Diamler Co Ltd company commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an enemy company for the purpose of trading because its effective control was in enemy hands. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 30.
    28/42 4. Accordingly thecompany was debarred from maintaining the action. It would be against public policy to allow alien enemies to trade. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler Co Ltd Vs Continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 31.
    7. Protecting PublicPolicy 29/42 COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 32.
    30/42 1. Daimler Coltd was incorporated in England for the purpose of selling the motor tyres manufactured in Germany by a German Company. 2. The Germany Company held the bulk of shares in Daimler Co ltd & all the directors were Germans resident in Germany. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 33.
    31/42 3. During thefirst world war Diamler Co ltd company commenced an action to recover a trade debt. The house of lords held that the Daimler Co ltd was an enemy company for the purpose of trading because its effective control was in enemy hands. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 34.
    32/42 4. Accordingly thecompany was debarred from maintaining the action. It would be against public policy to allow alien enemies to trade. COMMON LAW EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL  Daimler Co Ltd Vs continental Tyre Rubber Co Ltd. www.seribangash.com
  • 35.
    1.Reduction of numbersof Members below the Statutory Limit 33/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 36.
    1.Reduction of numbersof Members below the Statutory Limit 34/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 37.
    2.Liability for thefraudulent conduct of business 35/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 38.
    3.Liability for UltraVires Acts 36/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 39.
    4.Investigation of Ownershipof Company 37/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 40.
    5. Mis- Descriptionof Company’s Name 38/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 41.
    6. Mis- Statementin Prospectus 39/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 42.
    7. Failure toRefund Application Money 40/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 43.
    7. Failure toRefund Application Money 41/42 STATUTORY PROVISIONS EXCEPTION OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL www.seribangash.com
  • 44.
    42/42 WWW.SERIBANGASH.COM  https://seribangash.com/bermuda-triangle-umkown- mystery-of-life/ For MorePowerPoints Presentations & Blogs Please Visit…  http://seribangash.com/power-point-of-t-shirt-printing- machine/  https://seribangash.com/barber-shop-business- complete-guide-for-beginners/

Editor's Notes

  • #2 Bismillah………
  • #3 Sir, first I shall apprise about Junior Staff Wing.