Piercing of Corporate Veil
As per the Companies Act, 2013 | Paper 6.2 — Company Law
📌 Jump To Section
🏛️ I. Introduction — The Corporate Veil
A company under the Companies Act, 2013 is treated as a separate legal entity — distinct from its members, directors, and promoters. This separation is called the "Corporate Veil."
- When a company is incorporated, the law draws a veil (curtain) between the company and its members.
- Members enjoy limited liability — they are not personally liable for the company's debts.
- The landmark case establishing this principle is Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897).
- However, this veil is not absolute. Courts can pierce or lift the corporate veil when it is misused.
📖 II. Meaning & Definition
- Corporate Veil = The legal fiction/screen separating a company from its members.
- Piercing / Lifting the Veil = The judicial or statutory act of looking behind the veil and treating the company's acts as the acts of its members/directors.
- This is done when the corporate form is used as a shield for fraud, evasion, or illegality.
- Courts treat the company and the persons behind it as one and the same for that specific purpose.
Lifting of Veil
Done by Courts based on equitable principles — also called judicial lifting.
Piercing by Statute
Done under specific provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 — also called statutory lifting.
📜 III. Statutory Provisions — Companies Act, 2013
The Companies Act, 2013 provides for lifting of the corporate veil under the following key sections:
- If a company is incorporated by furnishing false or incorrect information or suppressing material facts, the NCLT may pass an order to:
- Regulate the management, dissolve the company, or impose liability on the promoters/directors as if the company had never been incorporated.
- Effect: The separate entity fiction is completely removed.
- Section 34: If a prospectus contains an untrue or misleading statement, the promoters, directors, or persons authorizing the prospectus are personally liable.
- Section 35: Civil liability for untrue statements — any person who subscribed based on a misleading prospectus can claim compensation.
- Directors cannot hide behind the company's separate identity to escape liability.
- Any person who knowingly induces another to invest in securities by making false or deceptive promises is personally liable.
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine up to 3 times the amount involved.
- An officer who signs, issues, or authorizes a document (like a bill of exchange, cheque) without mentioning the company's name is personally liable on that instrument.
- The company name must be mentioned correctly — failure makes the officer personally responsible.
- When the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) reports that a fraud has been committed by officers of the company, the NCLT may direct that officers be personally liable without any limitation.
- The corporate veil is lifted to recover assets misappropriated by directors/officers.
- During winding up, if it appears that any business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose, the NCLT may:
- Declare that persons knowingly party to such fraud are personally liable without limitation for all debts of the company.
- This is the most important provision for lifting the corporate veil during insolvency.
- If in the course of winding up, it appears that any officer has misapplied, retained, or become liable for company money/property, or has committed misfeasance/breach of trust:
- The NCLT may examine the conduct and compel such officer to repay or restore the money or contribute to the company's assets.
- Fraud includes any act, omission, concealment of fact, or abuse of position with intent to deceive, gain undue advantage, or injure.
- Punishment: Imprisonment 6 months to 10 years + Fine equal to or up to 3 times the fraud amount.
- Where fraud involves public interest — minimum 3 years imprisonment.
- This section supports personal liability even behind the corporate veil.
- If at any time the number of members of a company falls below the statutory minimum (2 for private company, 7 for public company) and the company continues business for more than 6 months:
- Every member who is aware of this fact becomes jointly and severally liable for debts incurred during that period.
⚖️ IV. Judicial / Non-Statutory Grounds for Lifting
Apart from statutory provisions, courts lift the veil based on equitable principles in the following situations:
Prevention of Fraud
When the corporate form is used to commit or conceal fraud.
📘 Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne (1933)
Enemy Character (National Emergency)
During war, if the controlling shareholders are enemy nationals, the company gets the character of an enemy.
📘 Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre Co. (1916)
Evasion of Legal Obligations
When a company is formed to evade legal duties, contracts, or court orders.
📘 Jones v. Lipman (1962)
Sham or Facade Company
When the company is a mere façade with no real business — just a cloak for illegal acts.
📘 Re: Darby (1911)
Agency / Trust
When a company acts merely as an agent or trustee of its controlling member/shareholder.
📘 Re: FG Films Ltd. (1953)
Determination of Character
To determine the true nature and character of the entity (e.g., public vs. private, domestic vs. foreign).
📘 LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986)
Tax Evasion
When a company is structured purely to evade legitimate tax obligations.
📘 Vodafone Int'l Holdings v. Union of India (2012)
Public Interest
When ignoring the corporate entity is necessary in the interest of justice and public policy.
📘 Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction (1996)
📚 V. Landmark Cases on Piercing the Corporate Veil
Facts: Mr. Salomon converted his sole business into a company, took most of the shares and debentures himself. On winding up, unsecured creditors claimed Salomon & the company were one.
Held: The company is a separate legal entity — distinct from its members. Creditors cannot pierce the veil merely because one person dominates the company.
🏛️ Principle: Corporate Personality / Separate Entity Rule
Facts: A company incorporated in England was controlled by German shareholders during WWI. It sued to recover a debt.
Held: The court looked behind the corporate veil to determine the true character of the shareholders. Since they were enemy aliens, the company was treated as an enemy — veil lifted.
🏛️ Principle: Enemy Character — National Interest
Facts: Mr. Horne, bound by a non-solicitation clause in his employment contract, formed a new company to solicit his former employer's customers.
Held: The company was a mere cloak or sham to evade a contractual obligation. Court granted injunction against both Horne and his company.
🏛️ Principle: Evasion of Contractual Obligation / Fraud
Facts: Lipman contracted to sell land to Jones but then transferred the land to a company he formed (with a nominee) to avoid specific performance.
Held: The company was a mask held over the vendor's face. Court ordered specific performance against both Lipman and the company.
🏛️ Principle: Evasion of Court Orders / Sham Company
Facts: Skipper Construction fraudulently collected money from flat buyers under multiple companies. DDA cancelled allotment. Skipper used corporate structure to avoid liability.
Held: The Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil and held the promoters personally accountable. Corporate form cannot be used to defraud innocent persons.
🏛️ Principle: Public Interest / Consumer Fraud — Indian Context
Facts: Non-Resident Indians purchased shares in Escorts Ltd. through various foreign companies. FERA compliance was in question.
Held: Court looked behind the corporate veil to determine the nationality and identity of the real shareholders to check FERA compliance.
🏛️ Principle: Regulatory Compliance / Determination of True Character
📊 VI. Summary Table — Statutory Provisions
| Section | Provision / Rule | Meaning | Key Effect | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3A | Members Severally Liable | Below minimum members continue for 6+ months | Members personally liable for debts | Pvt. Co. with 1 member trades for 8 months |
| 7(7) | Fraudulent Incorporation | False info used to register company | NCLT may dissolve; promoters personally liable | Forged documents used for registration |
| 34 & 35 | Misleading Prospectus | Untrue statements in prospectus | Directors/promoters liable to pay compensation | False profit claims to attract investors |
| 36 | Fraudulent Inducement | Deceptive investment promises | Personal criminal + civil liability | Guaranteed returns promised falsely |
| 147(4)/(5) | Officer Acting Without Authority | Name of company not mentioned on documents | Officer personally liable on that instrument | Cheque signed with wrong company name |
| 212(6) | SFIO Investigation | Fraud found by SFIO in company affairs | Officers personally liable without limitation | Directors siphon funds; NCLT holds them liable |
| 339 | Fraudulent Conduct (Winding Up) | Business run to defraud creditors | Directors personally liable for all company debts | Trading while insolvent to defraud creditors |
| 340 | Delinquent Officers (Winding Up) | Misapplication of company property | NCLT orders repayment/restoration | MD withdraws company funds for personal use |
| 447 | Punishment for Fraud | Any act of deception for gain | 6 months–10 years + fine up to 3× amount | Falsified accounts; fraudulent dividend |
✅ VII. Exam Tips & Quick Revision Points
- Always start your answer with Salomon v. Salomon — it establishes the corporate veil principle.
- Distinguish between statutory lifting (under specific sections) and judicial lifting (court discretion).
- Mention at least 4–5 section numbers with brief explanations — examiner expects statutory grounding.
- Always give at least 2–3 case citations with the principle they establish.
- The terms "lifting," "piercing," and "shattering" the veil are used interchangeably — explain all mean the same.
- Section 339 is the most important provision for winding up scenarios — memorize its elements.
- Remember: the veil is lifted only as an exception, not the rule — courts are cautious.
📌 Jump To Section
🔍 Concept of Corporate Veil & Its Lifting
The doctrine of separate legal personality, codified in the Companies Act, 2013, grants a company an identity independent of its members. A company can own property, enter contracts, sue and be sued in its own name.
However, when this legal personality becomes a tool for perpetrating fraud, evading obligations, or circumventing statutory duties, the courts or the legislature pierce through this veil and attribute the company's acts to its controllers.
📜 Historical Background
- 1855 — Limited Liability Act (UK): First recognition of limited liability for company members.
- 1897 — Salomon v. Salomon: House of Lords firmly established the separate legal entity doctrine — confirmed corporate veil.
- Early 20th Century: Courts started recognizing exceptions in cases of fraud and national emergency.
- Post-Independence India: Indian courts followed UK precedents but developed India-specific grounds (public interest, regulatory compliance).
- 2013 — Companies Act, 2013: India codified numerous provisions explicitly lifting the corporate veil — making statutory lifting systematic and comprehensive.
- 2016 onwards — SFIO & IBC: Enhanced investigative powers and insolvency provisions further strengthened veil-lifting mechanisms.
⚖️ Statutory Basis Under Companies Act, 2013
The Act has embedded multiple provisions that expressly pierce the corporate veil. The following are the principal statutory mechanisms:
Where a company has been incorporated by furnishing false or suppressed information, the NCLT upon application can:
- Pass directions for regulation of management.
- Direct winding up.
- Impose liability as if the company had never been incorporated on the persons responsible.
- The persons responsible shall be liable for all liabilities which have been incurred/arose post-incorporation.
Penalty under Section 7(8): Officer in default liable for fraud under Section 447.
Any prospectus that contains a statement which is untrue or misleading in form or context makes every person who authorized its issue criminally liable. Punishment under Section 447 — the corporate veil offers no shield.
Subscribing persons misled by untrue statements can sue directors, promoters, and experts who authorized the misleading statement for compensation. Defenses: belief in truth, consent withdrawal, etc.
This is the crown provision for veil-lifting. Requirements:
- Company must be in the course of winding up.
- Business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or any other persons, or for any fraudulent purpose.
- The NCLT may declare that any persons knowingly parties to such fraud are personally liable without any limitation for all or any of the debts.
Applicable during winding up when any past or present officer, promoter, liquidator has:
- Misapplied or retained company money or property.
- Become liable or accountable for company money or property.
- Committed misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty.
NCLT can examine conduct and compel contribution to company assets.
A comprehensive anti-fraud provision under which:
- "Fraud" = any act, omission, concealment, or abuse of position committed with intent to deceive, gain undue advantage, or injure interests of the company, its shareholders, creditors, or public.
- Punishment: Imprisonment 6 months–10 years + Fine ≥ amount of fraud and up to 3× amount of fraud.
- Where fraud involves public interest: minimum 3 years imprisonment.
🏛️ Judicial / Equitable Grounds for Lifting
Fraud or Improper Conduct
Courts pierce the veil whenever corporate form is used as an instrument of fraud, deception, or evasion. The company cannot become a cloak for wrongdoing.
Sham or Façade
When the company has no genuine independent existence and is entirely controlled by one person with no real business operations, it is treated as a sham.
Enemy Character
During hostilities, courts look through the corporate veil to determine whether the persons in control are enemies — affecting the company's legal capacity to sue.
Agency / Subsidiary Relationships
Where a subsidiary or related company acts merely as an agent of the holding company, the holding company may be held liable for the agent company's acts.
Tax Avoidance & Evasion
Courts look through complex corporate structures deliberately designed for tax evasion — though legitimate tax planning is permissible.
Public Policy & Consumer Protection
In India, courts have consistently lifted the veil to protect innocent consumers, flat buyers, depositors from corporate fraud by promoters hiding behind the company structure.
⚖️ Illustrative Case Studies with Principles
Context: A company's character was determined by looking at its controlling shareholders.
Principle: The court can look at the real controllers of a company to determine its true character — important in regulatory and enemy-character contexts.
Context: FG Films Ltd. (English company) was used by an American company to register a film as a British film for quota purposes. The English company was entirely controlled by the American parent.
Held: The English company was merely an agent of the American parent — veil lifted. Film was not a "British film."
🏛️ Principle: Agency/Subsidiary — Subsidiary as mere agent of parent
Context: TELCO challenged a Bihar sales tax imposition, claiming it was essentially composed of its shareholders (Indian citizens).
Held: The company is a distinct legal entity — the citizenship of shareholders does not determine the company's fundamental rights. Veil not lifted here — reinforced Salomon.
🏛️ Principle: Corporate Personality upheld — Company ≠ shareholders
Context: Hindalco set up Renusagar (captive power company) to supply electricity exclusively to itself. Question was whether they were same entity for the purpose of tax concessions.
Held: In certain circumstances of complete identity, companies wholly controlled by and solely serving one parent may be treated as one. Veil lifted for limited purpose.
🏛️ Principle: Subsidiary as alter ego of parent in specific contexts
📊 Comparison — Statutory vs. Judicial Lifting
| Aspect | Statutory Lifting | Judicial Lifting |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Parliament (through specific sections) | Courts (discretionary) |
| Trigger | Specific conditions in the Act | Fraud, evasion, public policy |
| Predictability | High — defined in legislation | Variable — case by case |
| Key Sections | 3A, 7(7), 34, 35, 36, 147, 212, 339, 340, 447 | Discretion of courts |
| Consequence | Personal liability, criminal liability, dissolution | Personal liability, injunctions |
| Appeal | NCLT/NCLAT | Appellate courts |
| Examples | Fraudulent winding up, forged incorporation | Enemy character, sham company |
🎯 Conclusion
The principle of corporate veil is a cornerstone of company law — enabling business activity with limited risk. However, it is not an absolute shield. The Companies Act, 2013, through comprehensive statutory provisions (Sections 3A, 7, 34, 35, 36, 147, 212, 339, 340, 447), and the Indian judiciary through equitable doctrines, ensure that the corporate form cannot be misused for fraud, evasion, or oppression.
The balance between protecting legitimate business operations and preventing abuse of the corporate structure reflects the maturity and fairness of Indian corporate law under the 2013 Act.
🔀 Flowchart — Process of Lifting the Corporate Veil
From Corporate Veil Creation → Grounds for Lifting → Legal Mechanism → Outcome
🧠 Mind Map — Piercing of Corporate Veil
Complete conceptual overview from one central topic
📌 Jump To Stage
🗺️ Learning Roadmap — Piercing of Corporate Veil
5-Stage structured plan for LL.B. students | Estimated: 5–7 Hours Total
📘 Basics — Foundation Concepts
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
- Understand what a company is under Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013.
- Learn the doctrine of Separate Legal Entity — the company as a distinct person.
- Read and understand the famous Salomon v. Salomon (1897) case fully.
- Understand what the "Corporate Veil" means in simple terms.
- Learn the concept of limited liability and why it matters.
- Understand what lifting/piercing/shattering the veil means.
📗 Core Provisions — Statutory Framework
Estimated Time: 90 minutes
- Study each provision one by one — Read the bare act text for each section:
- Section 3A — Below minimum members + 6-month trading.
- Section 7(7) & 7(8) — Fraudulent incorporation + NCLT powers.
- Sections 34 & 35 — Misleading prospectus (criminal + civil liability).
- Section 36 — Fraudulent inducement (10 years + fine).
- Section 147(4)/(5) — Officer acting with wrong company name.
- Section 212(6) — SFIO investigation and personal liability.
- Section 339 — Fraudulent conduct during winding up (most important).
- Section 340 — Delinquent officers during winding up.
- Section 447 — Omnibus fraud provision + punishment scale.
📙 Procedures & Applications
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
- Learn when and how a court or NCLT exercises the power to lift the veil:
- NCLT jurisdiction — under Sections 7(7), 339, 340 (Insolvency situations).
- Criminal Courts — under Sections 34, 36, 447 (fraud prosecutions).
- SFIO — Investigation under Section 212 and report to NCLT.
- High Courts / Supreme Court — Judicial lifting based on equitable grounds.
- Understand the difference between winding-up context (Secs 339–340) and ongoing business context (Secs 34–36).
- Learn the concept of alter ego doctrine — subsidiary as agent of parent.
- Understand the NCLAT appeals process for NCLT orders.
📕 Case Law Linkage
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
✅ Case law found in the topic — this stage is active.
- Salomon v. Salomon (1897) — Corporate personality / veil established.
- Daimler v. Continental Tyre (1916) — Enemy character / nationality of controllers.
- Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne (1933) — Fraud / evasion of contractual duty.
- Jones v. Lipman (1962) — Sham company / evasion of court order.
- Re: FG Films Ltd. (1953) — Subsidiary as mere agent of parent.
- LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. (1986) — India: regulatory compliance.
- DDA v. Skipper Construction (1996) — India: public interest / consumer fraud.
- Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar (1964) — Salomon affirmed in India.
- State of UP v. Renusagar (1988) — Alter ego in India.
📓 Exam Revision Checklist
Estimated Time: 30–45 minutes (Day before exam)
📊 Roadmap Summary Table
| Stage | Topic / Focus | Goal | Time | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Basics — Corporate Veil Concept | Understand the foundation | 45 min | Can explain Salomon rule + veil concept |
| Stage 2 | Core Provisions — 10 Key Sections | Know each section + example | 90 min | Section-wise notes + examples from memory |
| Stage 3 | Procedures & Application | Know the correct forum/mechanism | 60 min | Ability to solve problem questions |
| Stage 4 | Case Law — 9 Landmark Cases | Facts + Held + Principle per case | 60 min | Case bank for exam citation |
| Stage 5 | Exam Revision Checklist | Confident exam readiness | 45 min | Completed checklist + model answer outline |