louboutin chaussure online Christian Louboutin Femme Escarpins , Christian Louboutin Tres Decollete 100mm Escarpins Gris, christian louboutin en ligne,chaussure online louboutin,outlet imitation louboutin,Distributeur Officiel
1. Your order is usually shipped out within 24-48 hours after your payment is received.
2. The tracking number of your parcel will be sent to you after your order is despatched. You may use the tracking number to check the status of your order online.
3. The shipping fee will be auto-added in the grand total when you send payment.
Case Study on Separate Legal Entity of a Company
Case Study on Company as
Separate Legal Entity
corporation is a separate legal entity from its owners. In other words, if a
corporation, in the course of doing business, is involved in any legal action,
then the corporation, for legal purposes, is its own person. The corporation is
liable for its taxes - not the owner. This is how corporations may sue and be
sued, and their assets are tracked separately. If a corporation is sued, then
the owners will not have their personal belongings at risk unless those
belongings were purchased with illegal returns from the corporation.
sole proprietorship or partnership, the owners personally liable. For all
intents and purposes, all acts taken by these two company types are taken by
the owners themselves. The company becomes a legal person in its own right,
distinct from the
Shareholders and management:
was seen in the famous case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd (1897). Separate
personality means that the artificial legal person, the company, can do almost
everything a human person can do; it can make contracts, employ people, borrow
and pay money, sue and be sued, among other things.
‘veil of incorporation’ is the rather poetic term given to this separation of
the company from its shareholders or members. This separation of a company from
its members was established in the House of Lords in the famous case.
Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd
Salomon had a boot manufacturing business which he decided to incorporate into
a private limited company. He sold his business to the newly formed company, A
Salomon & Co Ltd, and took his payment by shares and a debenture or debt of
£10,000. Mr Salomon owned 20,000 £1 shares, and his wife and five children
owned one share each. Some years later the company went into liquidation, and
Mr Salomon claimed to be entitled to be paid first as a secured debenture
holder. The liquidator and the other creditors objected to this, claiming that
it was unfair for the person who formed and ran the company to get paid first.
However, the House of Lords held that the company was a different legal person
from the shareholders, and thus Mr Salomon, as a shareholder and creditor, was
totally separate in law from the company A Salomon & Co Ltd. The result was
that Mr Salomon was entitled to be repaid the debt as the first secured
case, Mr Salomon was the major shareholder, a director, an employee and a
creditor of the company he created. It is quite common in Ireland for one
person to have such a variety of roles and still be a different legal entity
from the company.
Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd
case, Mr. Lee formed his crop spraying business into a limited company in which
he was director, shareholder and employee. When he was killed in a flying
accident, his widow sought social welfare compensation from the State, arguing
that Mr. Lee was a ‘worker’ under the law. The State argued that Mr. Lee was
self-employed and thus not covered by the legislation. The court held that Mr.
Lee and the company he had formed were separate entities, and it was possible
for Mr. Lee to be employed by Lee’s Air Farming.
following case is similar to Salomon and Lee, but the principle of separate
personality worked to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.
Battle v Irish Art Promotion
Centre Ltd (1968)
defendant company was involved in legal proceedings but did not have enough
money for legal representation. The plaintiff, who was the major shareholder
and managing director of the company, sought to conduct the company’s defence.
The court held that while a human person can represent him or herself in court,
a legal person such as a company can only be represented by a solicitor or
principle in Salomon’s Case that a company is a legally different person from
those who control it represents the current law in Ireland. For example, if I form a
company called ‘Murphy & Co Ltd’ in which I own one hundred per cent of the
shares and am a director and employee, legally speaking the company and myself
are two distinct people. The ‘corporate veil’ surrounds the company of Murphy
& Co Ltd and prevents outsiders challenging the operation of the company.
However, although the principle of separation is central to company law, there
are a number of situations when the company and its members can be identified
together and treated as the same. These are the exceptions to the rule in
Salomon’s Case, when the corporate veil is lifted and the reality of the
situation is examined.
State Trading Corporation of
India Ltd. AIR (1963) SC 1811
held that As soon as citizens form a company, the rights guaranteed to them by
article 19(1)c has been exercised and no restraint has been placed on the right
and no infringement of that right is made. Once a company or corporation is
formed, the business which is carried on by the such company or corporation is
the business of that company or corporation and is not the business of the
citizens who get the company or corporation incorporated and the rights of the
incorporated body must be judges on that footing and cannot be judged on the
assumption that they are the rights attributed to the business of individual
In C.I.T. v. Meenakshi Mills
Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 819)
court held that the income-tax authorities were entitled to pierce the veil of
corporate entity and to look at the reality of the transaction to examine
whether the corporate entity was being used for tax evasion. In this case, a
separate corporate entity was brought into existence outside the taxable
territory with the ulterior motive of evading the tax obligation by the
Supreme Court observed: "It is true that from the juristic point of view,
the company is a legal personality entirely distinct from its members and the
company is capable of enjoying rights and being subjected to duties which are
not the same as those enjoyed or borne by its members.
certain exceptional cases the Court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate
entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade. For
example, the Court has power to disregard the corporate entity if it is used
for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation."
Macaura v Northern Assurance Co
Ltd (1925) AC 619
before the House of Lords concerning the principle of lifting the corporate
own land on which stood timber. He sold the land and timber to a company he
formed and received as consideration all the fully paid shares. The company
carried the business of felling and milling timber. A fire destroyed all timber
which had been felled. Macaura had earlier insured the timber against loss of
by fire in his own name. He had not transferred the insurance policy to the
owned a tree plantation. The plantation was covered by an insurance policy. He
subsequently sold the plantation to a company of which he was the only
shareholder, through the purchase money remained owing to him. After the sale,
Macaura continued to insure the plantation in his own name. A fire broke out
and destroyed the plantation. When Macaura attempted to claim on the policy,
the company refused to pay. The issue was whether Macaura had an insurable
interest at the time of the loss.
case is depending upon the fact that Company whether private or public is
distinct from his owner if he took the policy from insurance company at the
name of company then he could claim for damages.
court held that insurers were not liable. Only Macaura’s company, as owner of
the timber, which had the requisite insurable interest in it. Only the company,
and not Macaura, could insure its property against loss or damage. Shareholders
have no legal or equitable interest in their company’s property. Such property
belongs to the company which had a legal personality. This was despite the fact
that he was the sole shareholder and was also a creditor of the company to a
entity cannot aspire top hold a Public office or to membership of Parliament or
the Legislature or to Franchise or to entry into educational institutions. This
is because it is to a citizen in true sense of the term and because it’s
‘nationality’ though of consequence in Public or Private International Law, in
treaties, in conventions and in protocols, is of no consequence in Municipal Law
except to the extent that the Municipal Law says so.
General Causes Act is applicable to interpret the Constitution and that Act ,
defines ‘person’ as including corporations.The following article of the
Constitution employ the word ‘person’ which applies equally to individuals as
to corporations etc.
Art. 14: Equality before Law.
Art. 20: Protection in respect of
Art. 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for
promotion of any particular Religion.
Vincent Nyangayo May 9, 2011
Thank you verry much. The material on seperate legal entity/peson was verry helpfull. I appreciate. Keep up your good work
twinkle March 14, 2012
thank u so much for ur info, helps alot!!
Doubt April 6, 2012
thank you so much
sakshi April 17, 2012
thankyou so much :)
mayank April 19, 2012
This is really a good website
snehil May 7, 2012
thanks for d knowledge..