Grounds for Lifting the Corporate Veil

References

[1] Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd., 1897:22.

[2] Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. v. Horne, 1933:935.

[3] Jones v. Lipman, 1962:1:832.

[4] Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., 1986:1:264.

[5] Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., 1996:4:622.

[6] Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd., 2013:34.

[7] Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1964:6:885.

[8] State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., 1988:4:59.

[9] Bakshi PM. Corporations and the Corporate Veil, Journal of Indian Law Institute, 1999.

[10] Bangia RK. Company Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Latest Edition.

[11] Singh A. Company Law, Eastern Book Company, Latest Edition.

[12] Gower LCB. Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law, Sweet & Maxwell.

[13] Palmer F. Palmer’s Company Law, Sweet & Maxwell.

[14] Mayson, French & Ryan. Company Law, Oxford University Press.

[15] Companies Act, 2013 (India).

[16] Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations.

[17] The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

[18] Furmston MP. “Corporate Personality and the Doctrine of Lifting the Corporate Veil.” Cambridge Law Journal.

[19] Ottolenghi S. “From Peering Behind the Corporate Veil to Not Looking at All,” Modern Law Review, 1

[20] Davies P.L. Principles of Modern Company Law.

[21] Rajak H. "Judicial Disregard of the Company," South African Law Journal.

[22] Keay A. "The Corporate Veil: An Assessment," Common Law World Review.

[23] OECD. Beneficial Ownership and Corporate Transparency Report.

[24] Kraakman R. et al. The Anatomy of Corporate Law, Oxford University Press.

[25] Thompson R. "Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study," Cornell Law Review.

[26] Ministry of Corporate Affairs, GOI – Reports on Corporate Governance

[27] International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) Guidelines

[28] Verma S. “Corporate Veil: Indian Approach to Lifting and Piercing”, National Law School Journal

[29] Companies Act, 2013 (with Rules)

[30] Companies Act, 1956 (for historical perspective)

[31] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

[32] Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

[33] SEBI (Listing Obligations Requirements) Regulations, 2015

[34] SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 and Disclosure

[35] Davies. Introduction (OUP/Clarendon, latest edn). to Company

[36] Kershaw. Company Law in Context (OUP) Law

[37] Kraakman R, Armour J et al. The Anatomy of Corporate Law (OUP, 3rd edn).

[38] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India: ibbi.gov.in

[39] Legislation (UK): legislation.gov.uk

[40] BAILII/HUDOC – comparative judgments

[41] HeinOnline, JSTOR, SSRN – journal access

[42] SCC Online, Manupatra –

@article{1717871,
      author = {Priya, Suryapratap Singh Pundir},
      title = {Grounds for Lifting the Corporate Veil},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {11},
      pages = {2777-2787},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1717871.pdf},
      abstract = {The said principle, as established through the seminal English ruling of Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897), guarantees that a company’s rights and liabilities shall remain independent of those individuals controlling or owning it. Amongst the various benefits that come with the application of the separate legal entity doctrine include perpetual succession, limited liability, transferability of shares, and an independent pool of assets. Unfortunately, while the features of the corporation may be seen as advantages, they can be easily abused, hence the creation of ways through which courts or legislators can lift the corporate veil, a rare practice that will be discussed further in this research paper. This study seeks to analyze the principles of lifting the corporate veil through landmark cases like Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne, Jones v. Lipman, and significant Indian rulings including Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. The paper presents a case study and comparison which demonstrates that while the process of piercing the veil helps in ensuring accountability and avoiding the misuse of corporate personality, there is a need to exercise great care on part of the courts while doing so. Conclusion The paper ends with suggestions regarding the criteria for making sure that piercing of the veil remains consistent going forward.},
      keywords = {Corporate Veil, Piercing the Veil, Company Law, Public Interest, Corporate Fraud, Indian Corporate Jurisprudence, Judicial Accountability},
      month = {May},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I11-1717871}
  }