tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post1396544238074554307..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: A Reiteration of Separate Legal EntityUmakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-40645701737895281322013-09-19T21:00:01.974+05:302013-09-19T21:00:01.974+05:30It is a Himachal Pradesh judgment.It is a Himachal Pradesh judgment.Damodar Singhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-8829424423127283282013-08-08T21:21:22.311+05:302013-08-08T21:21:22.311+05:30The view taken by the Hon'ble Court is correct...The view taken by the Hon'ble Court is correct in view of the ruling of the Solomon v/s. Solomon and Company Ltd., by the House of Lords and as per section 36 of the Companies Act, 1956. One cannot mix up the affairs of the company with the affairs of the shareholders.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01236189797914483206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-3426343929166133022009-10-31T12:17:19.423+05:302009-10-31T12:17:19.423+05:30Should the court decision be assumed to be THE COR...Should the court decision be assumed to be THE CORRECT or ONLY POSSIBLE OBJECTIVE VIEW in all its ramifications, how then the Exlanation under section 170 could, in its letter and spirit, be at all given effect to? <br /> <br />vswaminathanvswaminathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-67555197654692787242009-10-30T13:22:28.360+05:302009-10-30T13:22:28.360+05:30To continue:
Also to consider:
1. The implicati...To continue: <br /><br />Also to consider:<br /><br />1. The implications of the Explanation under section 170; to be precise, in the view the HC has taken, how/in what manner the Explanation could be given effect to!<br /><br />2. As may be readily gathered from the articles/write-ups on the related websites, there are two varying schools of thought obtaining in legal circles; one for and the other against the age-old HL's decision in Salamon vs Salamon <br />(1897)- the second appears to be increasingly gaining momentum, especially in the changed circumsances of today.<br /><br />Of course, for my own individual views, one may refer my published article - 176 taxman 82 (Mag)<br /><br />vswaminathanvswaminathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-16282350871035188722009-10-30T06:14:50.867+05:302009-10-30T06:14:50.867+05:30Dear Mr Anonymous
You need to read my Post fully (...Dear Mr Anonymous<br />You need to read my Post fully (not just stop at - "conceded")- for trying and correctly understanding what I have sought to briefly convey.<br /><br />I, for one, always believe that, -self-help (study) is always the best course for anyone to follow in such or similar matters. Though, of course, left to myself, it could run into pages if I were to elaborate.<br /><br />Anyway, to provide some clues,: -one should consider the relevance or appropriateness, or otherwise, of the emphasis laid on / rather ought to / not to , have been laid on - the concepts of 'ownership", "transfer", etc, as discussed in the judgment,- particularly on a plain reading of section 170 - as to what, in terms, the section simply says. <br /><br />Also to bear in mind, the case law on - 'change in constitution of' vs 'Succession' - having particular regard to inter alia , though not necessarily, the fact that the assessee is - a closely held company.<br /><br />vswaminathan <br /><br />My feedbacks on this website are purely intended to provoke a useful study / healthy debate among those active in the field (unlike me) really interested in doing so. Not to venture and express any opinion of my own, a categorical one at that.vswaminathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-77433825358244791032009-10-30T01:43:30.102+05:302009-10-30T01:43:30.102+05:30Dear vswaminathan, you say that "the view han...Dear vswaminathan, you say that "the view handed down by the court is, with due respect, too technical to be conceded"<br /><br />I assume you are suggesting that the COurt decision is incorrect. Can you elaborate as to why respecting separate legal entity is "too technical"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-31814918948091496762009-10-28T15:28:27.590+05:302009-10-28T15:28:27.590+05:30Let me make my own bit of contribution - more by ...Let me make my own bit of contribution - more by way of confounding the existing confusion!<br /><br />Reproduced below is my feedback to ITATonline sent on 23-10-09: <br /><br />COMMENT: I have just browsed through the reported court decision. My view, even without going into details, is that prima facie - the view handed down by the court is, with due respect, too technical to be conceded, or to be readily accepted without any reservation, to be THE CORRECT OR IN ANY CASE, THE BETTER VIEW, in the matter.<br /><br />What is all the more intriguing rather disparaging and needs to be pinpointed is that, - the stance taken by the Revenue in the case on hand, is, if critically looked into, patently contrary and diametrically opposite to its own stance taken in the widely publicised case -popularly known as VODAFONE case. Though, of course, the fate of that case, - the final verdict on or against the seemingly unwarranted or mindless controversy brought to the fore by the Revenue, would possibly not come to be known any time in the foreseeable future.<br /><br />vswaminathanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14593271599219087418noreply@blogger.com