The Court may, on the facts of a case, treat a subsidiary as merely a branch or department of one large undertaking owned by the holding company. Rands, William J. (1998). "Domination of a Subsidiary by a Parent" (PDF). Indiana Law Review. 32: 421 . Retrieved 9 September 2017. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. State of Bihar [xvii]– In this case, it was stated that a company is also not allowed to lay claim on fundamental rights on the basis of its being an aggregation of citizens. Once a company is formed, its business is the business of an incorporated body thus formed and not of the citizens and the rights of such body must be judged on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributable to the business of the individual citizens.

It is neither necessary nor desirable to enumerate the classes of cases where lifting the veil is permissible, since that must necessarily depend on the relevant statutory or other provisions, the object sought to be achieved, the impugned conduct, the involvement of the element of public interest, the effect on parties who may be affected, etc.”. This was iterated by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. [vi] Lindgren, Kevin E.; R. B. Vermeesch (1995), Business Law of Australia, Butterworths, ISBN 0-409-30675-4 Occasionally the courts will compromise the principle in Salomon and allow remedies against the shareholders in respect of company liability or against the company for shareholder liability.

Case law

Where the court did lift the veil, the company was found to be a sham because it had no business of its own, it was just a name on the invoice, the company was merely a break between Cape and different parts of its operations. In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law. [39] Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant with corporate formalities, to prevent fraud, or to achieve equity in certain cases of undercapitalization. [40] [41]

Bremmer, Jan N. (2014). Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-029955-7. Baltrušaitis, Jurgis (1967). La Quête d'Isis: Essai sur la légende d'un mythe (in French). Olivier Perrin. The alter-ego theory considers if there is in distinctive nature of the boundaries between the corporation and its shareholders. Manager liability, where the directors are personally liable, is not lifting the veil. Lifting the veil is where members are liable for the company or the company is liable for the members.The company was held to be shown when it was used to try and dodge existing obligations. The corporate veil could be lifted. proximate cause": as a reasonably foreseeable result of the wrongful action, harm was caused to the party that is seeking to pierce the corporate veil. H Hansmann, R Kraakman and R Squire, 'Law and the Rise of the Firm' (2006) 119 Harvard Law Review 1333

TL Hazen and JW Markham, Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (2003) ISBN 0-314-26476-0 pg. 124–144. Fletcher v. Atex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1451 (2d Cir. 1995), [46] finding insufficient that a parent company so dominated the operations of a subsidiary that the corporate veil should be disregarded.

Statutory Provisions For Lifting The Veil-

Quentin, Florence (2012). Isis l'Éternelle: Biographie d'une mythe féminin (in French). Albin Michel. ISBN 978-2-226-24022-4. AVOIDANCE OF WELFARE LEGISLATION- Avoidance of welfare legislation is as common as avoidance of taxation and the approach of the Courts in considering problems arising out of such avoidance is generally the same as avoidance of taxation. It is the duty of the Courts in every case where ingenuity is expended to avoid welfare legislation to get behind the smokescreen and discover the true state of affairs. Some of the earliest instances where the English and Indian Courts disregarded the principle established in Salomon’s case are:

There have been cases in which it is to the advantage of the shareholder to have the corporate structure ignored. Courts have been reluctant to agree to this. [35] The often cited case Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [36] is an example of that. Mr Macaura was the sole owner of a company he had set up to grow timber. The trees were destroyed by fire but the insurer refused to pay since the policy was with Macaura (not the company) and he was not the owner of the trees. The House of Lords upheld that refusal based on the separate legal personality of the company. A company set up to carry out a series of fictitious transactions to try and protect the government of the Republic of Congo Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd [xiii]– This is an instance of determination of the enemy character of a company. In this case, there was a German company . It set up a subsidiary company in Britain and entered into a contract with Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (Great Britain) Ltd. for the supply of tyres. During the time of war, the British company refused to pay as trading with an alien company is prohibited during that time. To find out whether the company was a German or a British company, the Court lifted the veil and found out that since the decision making bodies, the board of directors and the general body of share holders were controlled by Germans, the company was a German company and not a British company and hence it was an enemy company. After Adams v. Cape Industries it seemed that there will need to be an express agency agreement for such a relationship to be found. It is an axiomatic principle of English company law that a company is an entity separate and distinct from its members, who are liable only to the extent that they have contributed to the company's capital: Salomon v Salomon [1897]. The effect of this rule is that the individual subsidiaries within a conglomerate will be treated as separate entities and the parent cannot be made liable for the subsidiaries' debts on insolvency. Furthermore, it can create subsidiaries with inadequate capitalisation and secure loans to the subsidiaries with fixed charges over their assets, despite the fact that this is "not necessarily the most honest way of trading". [22] The rule also applies in Scotland. [23]

Impropriety

Several other sources influenced the motif of the veiled Isis. One was a tradition that linked Isis with nature and the goddess Artemis. European art has a long tradition of personifying nature as a motherly figure. Starting in the 16th century, this motif was influenced by the iconography of the goddess Artemis of Ephesus (also known under the name of her Roman equivalent, Diana). The Ephesian Artemis was depicted with round protuberances on her chest that may originally have been jewelry but came to be interpreted as breasts. Isis was sometimes compared with Artemis, and the Roman writer Macrobius, in the fourth century CE, wrote, "Isis is the earth or nature that is under the sun. That is why the goddess's entire body bristles with a multitude of breasts placed close to one another [as in the case of Artemis of Ephesus], because all things are nourished by earth or by nature." Thus, the 16th-century artists represented nature as Isis-Artemis with multiple breasts. [5] Jan Lieder, "Liability because of existence-destroying interventions", in: Andrea Vicari/Alexander Schall (eds.), Company Laws of the EU, 2020, Part 2: Germany, Chapter 7: Groups of Companies, pp. 397 - 401, at paras. 647 - 661. There are two existing theories for the lifting of the corporate veil. The first is the “alter-ego” or other self theory, and the other is the “instrumentality” theory.