Ankur Lal Advocate

+9192160 17007

[email protected]

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin

constitution

The Doctrine of Corporate Veil and Its Exceptions: A Legal Analysis

Leave a Comment / Corporate Veil / By

Introduction The doctrine of the corporate veil is a foundational principle in corporate law, where a company is treated as a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, directors, and employees. This legal concept provides that the company’s obligations, debts, and liabilities are its own, protecting the personal assets of the individuals behind the company. However, there are circumstances under which the courts may “pierce” or “lift” the corporate veil, thereby holding the individuals behind the company personally liable. This article explores the doctrine of the corporate veil, its importance in corporate law, and the various exceptions that allow for its piercing.   The Doctrine of Corporate Veil The corporate veil refers to the legal distinction between a company and its shareholders or directors. This concept is rooted in the landmark case of *Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd* (1897), where the House of Lords held that a company is a separate legal entity from its owners. This principle has been instrumental in encouraging entrepreneurship, as it limits the financial risk of shareholders to the amount of their investment in the company. The corporate veil serves several purposes: Limited Liability: Shareholders are not personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the company beyond their shareholding. This encourages investment and economic growth by reducing the risk associated with business ventures. Perpetual Succession: The company continues to exist even if the shareholders or directors change or pass away. This ensures stability and continuity in business operations. Separate Legal Identity: The company can own property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued in its name, further reinforcing its status as a separate entity.   Piercing the Corporate Veil: Exceptions to the Doctrine Despite the protection offered by the corporate veil, courts have recognized situations where this veil can be pierced. The following are some of the key exceptions where courts may hold the individuals behind the company personally liable:   Fraud or Improper Conduct The most common ground for piercing the corporate veil is fraud or improper conduct. If a company is used as a vehicle for committing fraud or engaging in unlawful activities, courts are more likely to hold the individuals responsible. For instance, in the case of Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne (1933), the court pierced the corporate veil to prevent a former employee from using a company he formed to circumvent a non-compete clause. The court found that the company was a mere façade used to perpetrate a fraud.   Sham or Façade Companies A company that is merely a sham or façade, created to avoid legal obligations or to shield individuals from liability, may not be entitled to the protection of the corporate veil. In *Jones v Lipman* (1962), the court pierced the corporate veil where the defendant transferred property to a company to avoid a contract for sale. The court found that the company was a sham and ordered specific performance against the defendant.   Agency or Alter Ego Theory In certain cases, courts may pierce the corporate veil where the company is acting as an agent or alter ego of its shareholders. This occurs when the company is so closely controlled and dominated by an individual or group that it lacks a separate existence. The alter ego theory was applied in the case of DHN Food Distributors Ltd v Tower Hamlets (1976), where the court treated the parent company and its subsidiaries as a single economic entity.   Undercapitalization If a company is inadequately capitalized from the outset, with insufficient funds to meet its obligations, courts may pierce the corporate veil. Undercapitalization suggests that the company was never intended to operate as a separate legal entity but rather as a shield for its owners. In such cases, courts may hold shareholders personally liable for the company’s debts.   Avoidance of Existing Obligations Courts may also pierce the corporate veil where a company is used to avoid existing legal obligations. For instance, if a person transfers assets to a company to avoid paying a debt or judgment, the court may disregard the corporate entity. In *Adams v Cape Industries Plc* (1990), although the court did not pierce the veil, it established guidelines for doing so, noting that the corporate structure should not be used to avoid existing obligations.   Public Policy and Justice In some instances, courts may pierce the corporate veil on grounds of public policy or justice. This is often seen in cases involving tort liability, environmental damage, or human rights violations, where the interests of justice demand holding the individuals behind the company accountable. The case of Chandler v Cape Plc (2012) illustrates this, where the parent company was held liable for the asbestos-related injuries of an employee of its subsidiary on public policy grounds.   The Legal Implications of Piercing the Corporate Veil Piercing the corporate veil has significant legal implications for the individuals involved and for corporate law in general. It undermines the fundamental principle of limited liability, exposing shareholders and directors to personal liability. This can have a deterrent effect on business ventures, as individuals may be less willing to invest in or manage companies if they risk personal liability. Moreover, piercing the corporate veil can lead to complex legal battles, as courts must carefully balance the need to uphold the principle of limited liability with the need to prevent abuse of the corporate structure. The decision to pierce the veil is often fact-specific, requiring a thorough analysis of the company’s activities, the intentions of its shareholders, and the overall context.   Conclusion The doctrine of the corporate veil is a cornerstone of corporate law, providing essential protection to shareholders and promoting economic growth. However, this protection is not absolute. Courts have developed a range of exceptions that allow them to pierce the corporate veil in cases of fraud, sham companies, undercapitalization, and other improper conduct. While these exceptions are necessary to prevent abuse, they also carry significant legal implications, particularly in terms of personal liability for shareholders and …

The Doctrine of Corporate Veil and Its Exceptions: A Legal Analysis Read More »

Understanding the Uniform Civil Code: A Comprehensive Overview and Its Implications

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

Introduction- The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) represents a significant and ambitious reform in India’s legal landscape, proposing a single set of personal laws that would govern all citizens, irrespective of their religion. The concept aims to replace the diverse array of personal laws such as those concerning marriage, divorce, and inheritance specific to different religious communities with a standardized legal framework. This move is grounded in the principles of equality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The UCC seeks to address disparities and ensure equal legal treatment for all, fostering national unity and coherence in a multicultural society. Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is defined in our Constitution under Article 44 of Directive Principles of State Policy. It states that it is the duty of the state to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. In other words, we can say that it means one country one rule. Let us find out more about Uniform Civil Code, and its pros and cons. Purpose of Uniform Civil Code Romans have Jus Civile, a legal contemporary term that upholds all the rules and principles of law derived from the laws and customs of Rome. Uniform Civil Code is followed in countries like UK, France, US (California has a Family Code that applies to all citizens, regardless of their religion). Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt and Ireland. All these countries have one set of personal laws for all religions and there are no separate laws for any particular religion or community. In India, the Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasized the importance and necessity of uniformity in codification of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification. Divide and Rule policy of the British Empire. Hindu’s-brahamanical customs accepted-fear of opposition from higher castes. Muslims-diverse local customs so a uniform Sharia law of 1937 enacted to govern all Muslims. However local customs were allowed to outweigh the written text of law. After independence Hindus have to follow the Hindu code bill 1956, in the form of four separate acts, the Hindu Marriage Act, Succession Act, Minority and Guardianship Act and Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Muslims and other religions were given the liberty to follow their own respective laws. For Muslims, the Shariat prevails and All India Muslim Personal Law Board keeps attempting to regulate their laws. Why Do We Need a UCC? A Uniform Civil Code is needed to ensure equality and justice by providing a single legal framework for all citizens, regardless of their religion. It aims to: Promote Equality: It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law, eliminating disparities based on religious or community-specific personal laws. Simplify the Legal System: By standardizing laws related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, it reduces legal complexity and confusion. Enhance National Integration: It fosters a sense of unity and national identity by aligning personal laws with the principles of the Constitution, which upholds secularism and equality. Overall, the UCC seeks to balance the diverse needs of India’s population while ensuring fair and consistent treatment for all citizens. Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammad Ahmed Khan (1985) The Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammad Ahmed Khan case (1985) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband, Mohammad Ahmed Khan, and was not provided alimony. She sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which applies to all citizens regardless of religion. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, directing her ex-husband to provide her with maintenance under the provisions of Section 125. The court emphasized that personal laws should not contradict the principles of equality and justice guaranteed by the Constitution. This judgment was significant because it highlighted the need for a uniform approach to personal laws and sparked a national debate on the implementation of the UCC. The case underscored the challenge of reconciling personal laws with constitutional guarantees of equality and protection. Danial Latifi v. UOI (2001) The Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) case was a pivotal Supreme Court ruling in India concerning the application of Muslim personal law in the context of alimony and the broader issue of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). In this case, Danial Latifi challenged the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which was enacted after the Shah Bano case. Latifi argued that the Act did not provide sufficient protection for divorced Muslim women, as its limited maintenance to the period of iddah (waiting period) and did not ensure a fair and adequate maintenance beyond that period. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act but interpreted it in a way that required the husband to provide maintenance beyond the iddah period if the wife was unable to support herself. The Court emphasized that Muslim personal law must comply with constitutional guarantees of equality and justice. This ruling reinforced the principle that personal laws must align with the Constitution’s guarantee of equality and fair treatment, contributing to the ongoing discourse on the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India. Ms Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985) The case Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985) is a notable Supreme Court decision in India concerning the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and personal laws. In this case, Ms. Jorden Diengdeh, a Christian, sought to invoke the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, which governs Christian marriages and divorces. She contended that under this Act, she was entitled to relief in a divorce case. The respondent, S.S. Chopra, argued that the provisions were not applicable in the manner claimed by Ms. Diengdeh. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed the issue of whether personal laws for different communities could be applied uniformly in a manner that aligns with the principles of equality and fairness under …

Understanding the Uniform Civil Code: A Comprehensive Overview and Its Implications Read More »

Constitutionality Of The Electoral Bonds

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

The Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018, was introduced by the Ministry of Finance on January 02, 2018, provided for donations to political parties through issuance of electoral bonds using machinery of the State Bank of India (“SBI”). An electoral bond is like a promissory note. It is a bearer instrument payable to the bearer on demand. Unlike a promissory note, which contains the details of the payer and payee, an electoral bond has no information on the parties in the transaction at all, providing complete anonymity and confidentiality to the parties. It has inserted a striking feature that it would not carry the name or any other information of the donor, thereby making the donation anonymous. It could be encashed by an eligible political party through a bank account with an authorised bank. SBI had been authorised to issue and encash bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme and there was no limit to the number of bonds that a person or company could purchase. However, the constitutionality of the said scheme was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at multiple instances but it was finally put on record before the 5 Judge constitutional bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. challenging the amendments in the Finance Act, 2017, which opened the path for the Electoral Bond Scheme, on the grounds that the anonymity associated with the issuance of electoral bonds weakens the transparency in political funding and invades upon the voter’s right to information. However, a political party eligible to run campaigns must register under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to receive electoral bonds. It will have a life of only 15 days, during which it can be used to make donations to political parties. The two crucial questions before the hon’ble constitutional bench was; a) whether the non- disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act and Section 13A (b) of the Income Tax Act were violative of the Right to Information of citizens under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India; and b) whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182 (1) of the Companies Act infringes the principle of free and fair elections and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The constitution bench unanimously held that the said scheme is unconstitutional and violative of the citizens right to information under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Bench noted that despite constitutional measures, there is great political inequality in India. This inequality is driven by money. As a result, people with deep pockets influenced political decisions. “Economic inequality”, the Chief Justice of India wrote, “leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics.” It gives large donors a “seat at the table” and allows them to influence policy. The voter, therefore, must have access to information to assess whether “a correlation between policy making and financial contributions exists”. The Bench relied on the proportionality test laid down in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016). In that case, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Court had held that a measure restricting a fundamental right must have a “legitimate goal”, it must be a “suitable means” of reaching that goal, it must create the least amount of restriction as possible, and must be balanced and not have “a disproportionate impact” on the right holder. The Scheme was proposed as a tool to curb black money. The Court held that “the purpose of curbing black money is not traceable to any of the grounds in Article 19(2),” which lists reasonable restrictions to Article 19. Even if it were to accept that curbing black money was a legitimate goal, the Court said, the Scheme would have to pass the second test of being a “suitable means” to achieve that goal. The Scheme would pass the test even if it was “one of the many methods” to achieve the goal or “only partially gives effect to the purpose.” Applying the “double proportionality standards”, the court said that the clause was unconstitutional as it did not balance the conflicting right to information of voters with contributors’ right to privacy regarding their political affiliations. The Ld. Chief Justice of India further held that the “unlimited contribution by companies to political parties is antithetical to free and fair elections because it allows certain persons/companies to wield their clout and resources to influence policy making.” Giving companies this “unrestrained influence” violates the value of “one person, one vote”. The Supreme Court ordered banks to forthwith stop issuing Electoral Bonds and that the State Bank of India (SBI) shall furnish the details of Electoral Bonds encashed by the political parties. The court said that SBI should submit the details to the Election Commission of India and ECI shall publish these details on the website. Hence, the scheme of 2018 allowing anonymous electoral bonds were held unconstitutional, by the Hon’ble High Court and The CJI while reading out his judgement said that the Supreme Court holds that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of Right to Information and Article 19(1)(a) and issuance of fresh bond was prohibited. The Supreme Court said that information about corporate contributors through Electoral Bonds must be disclosed as the donations by companies are purely for quid pro quo purposes. The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said infringement of the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money.

Indian Constitution and Fair Trial

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

Fundamental Rights and Fair Trial As Indian citizens, we are all guaranteed fundamental rights that must be upheld. Even the accused are entitled to basic rights under Article 21 of the Constitution until and unless barred by the law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in the Rarriram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case, emphasizing that “a fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence.” The right to a fair trial is intrinsic to human rights. Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution ensures every accused has the right to legal representation, which requires them to be informed of the charges against them. Similarly, Section 211 of the CrPC mandates that the accused be aware of the grounds for arrest and specific accusations.   Key Elements of a Fair Trial A fair trial ensures the accused has a reasonable opportunity to present their case without bias, including impartial judgment and adequate representation. The principle of a fair trial encompasses both the rights of the accused and the victim. Factors contributing to a fair trial in India include the adversarial system inherited from the British, which presumes innocence until proven guilty and places the burden of proof on the prosecution.   Presumption of Innocence The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, derived from the Latin maxim “incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat,” meaning that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, not the accused. This principle prevents wrongful convictions, as affirmed in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka. Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Independence and Impartiality of the Judge The Indian judiciary operates independently, with session court judges not appointed by the government to avoid political influence. Judges must remain impartial, free from biases or personal interests, as mandated by Section 479 of the CrPC, which prohibits judges with a stake in the case from presiding over it.   Right to a Speedy Trial Trials must be conducted promptly, allowing reasonable time for both parties to present their case. Delays undermine justice, as highlighted in Husainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, where under-trial prisoners faced incarceration longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crimes. Section 309(1) of the CrPC supports this by mandating expeditious hearings, though care must be taken to avoid wrongful verdicts due to rushed proceedings.   Knowledge of the Accusation The accused must be fully informed of the grounds for their arrest. Section 50 of the CrPC requires that arresting officers provide this information, and Section 211 mandates that the accused be made aware of the charges in detail to mount an adequate defense.   Presence of the Accused The accused has the right to be present during trial proceedings and evidence collection, as per Section 273 of the CrPC. Section 317 allows a magistrate to excuse the accused from attendance if it serves justice. Evidence must be communicated clearly in a language the accused understands, as required by Section 279 of the CrPC, ensuring the accused can effectively participate in their defense.   Judiciary and Principles of Natural Justice Principles of natural justice, such as “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua” (no one should judge their own case) and “Audi Alteram Partem” (the other party must be heard), are foundational to fair trials. Though not codified, these principles underpin legal practices and ensure unbiased and thorough hearings. They are reflected in various legal provisions, and judges must uphold these principles to maintain justice.   Media Trial and Judiciary Media influence can skew public perception and pressure the judiciary. Media often presents one-sided narratives, which can undermine the impartiality of judicial proceedings, as seen in cases like M.P. Lohia vs. State of West Bengal and Saibal Kumar vs. BK. Sen. The Supreme Court has condemned media practices that interfere with justice, and it’s essential that media focus on objective reporting rather than commentary to avoid prejudicing court outcomes.   Procedural Safeguards for the Accused The CrPC mandates that police inform the arrested individual of the reasons for their arrest under Section 50. Section 57 and Article 22(2) require that the accused be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours. Legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Article 39A, and cases like Suk Das vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh affirm this. Additionally, Section 327 of the CrPC ensures open court proceedings, with exceptions for sensitive cases.   Conclusion This article outlines the essential components of a fair trial, emphasizing adherence to constitutional and procedural guidelines. Violations of these standards undermine justice, and establishing oversight bodies to monitor trial processes could help address discrepancies. It is crucial for judges to remain unbiased and for the public to understand the negative impact of media trials. Ensuring fair trials involves balancing speed with thoroughness and addressing any procedural failures to uphold justice for all parties involved.