The doctrine of corporate veil is a cornerstone of company law, establishing the principle that a company is a separate legal entity, distinct from its members and shareholders. This principle, first recognized in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897), allows companies to own property, incur debts, and sue or be sued in their own name. However, Indian courts, like their counterparts elsewhere, have developed exceptions to this doctrine. In specific circumstances, they “lift” or “pierce” the corporate veil to look beyond the company’s separate personality and hold the individuals behind it accountable.
The Principle of Corporate Veil in India
Section 9 of the Companies Act, 2013 grants companies a separate legal existence once incorporated. The principle shields shareholders from personal liability for the company’s debts and obligations, thereby encouraging entrepreneurship and investment. However, courts have clarified that this privilege cannot be misused for fraud, evasion of law, or other unlawful purposes.
Judicial Recognition of Exceptions
Indian courts have recognized several situations where lifting the corporate veil is justified. These exceptions are not codified in a single statute but have evolved through judicial pronouncements, balancing the interests of justice against the need to preserve corporate autonomy.
Fraud or Improper Conduct
The veil may be lifted if the company structure is used as a tool for fraud or dishonest activities.
-
In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (1996), the Supreme Court held that the corporate veil could be pierced to prevent misuse of the corporate form for defrauding buyers.
-
Similarly, in Jones v. Lipman (1962) (an English case often cited in India), a company formed merely to evade contractual obligations was disregarded.
Tax Evasion and Evasion of Law
Where the corporate form is used to evade tax or circumvent legal obligations, courts intervene.
-
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (1967), the Supreme Court lifted the veil to examine whether transactions were genuine or aimed at avoiding tax.
-
Companies cannot use their separate existence to escape statutory duties or obligations under labor and tax laws.
Protection of Public Interest
When public interest demands, courts may disregard the corporate personality.
-
In State of Rajasthan v. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (2016), the Supreme Court pierced the veil to prevent a company from misusing its structure for circumventing mining regulations.
-
This ensures that companies do not exploit corporate status to the detriment of society or the state.
Agency or Sham Companies
If a company is acting merely as an agent or façade of its shareholders, the veil can be lifted.
-
Courts look into whether the company is carrying on independent business or just acting as a mask for individuals.
-
In such cases, liability may be imposed on the persons controlling the company.
Group Companies and Economic Reality
Indian courts have sometimes lifted the veil to treat a group of companies as a single entity, especially where interlinked ownership and management structures are used to evade responsibilities.
-
In New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court recognized the concept of a single economic entity while evaluating tenders, treating a consortium of companies as one.
Statutory Exceptions under the Companies Act, 2013
Certain provisions of the Companies Act itself impose personal liability on directors and members, effectively lifting the veil:
-
Section 7(7): Liability for furnishing false information at incorporation.
-
Section 35: Liability for misstatements in prospectus.
-
Section 339: Liability for fraudulent conduct of business during winding up.
These statutory provisions reflect legislative recognition that the corporate veil cannot be absolute.
Conclusion
The doctrine of corporate veil is central to modern corporate law, but it is not inviolable. Indian courts have consistently held that the principle of separate legal personality cannot be used as a shield for fraud, evasion of law, or misuse of corporate privileges. By piercing the corporate veil in exceptional cases, the judiciary ensures that the law serves its true purpose—promoting genuine business while safeguarding justice, fairness, and public interest.