Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Workmen v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (1985)

By


Introduction

This case is related to the Lifting of The Corporate Veil. 

 Facts

  • The Workmen (P) of the respondent company (Associated Rubber Industry Ltd.) claimed for a bonus of 16% for the year 1969 which had been reduced to 4% by transferring the shares of INARCO Ltd. to its subsidiary company (Aril Holdings).
  • The shares had been earlier bought by the respondent company. The dividend earned from the shares were mentioned in the account of the respondent company and also were calculated for the bonus given to the workmen of the respondent company. 

Workmen contention 

  • In order to avoid payment of higher bonus, the Rubber Industry had created a subsidiary company and transferred the shares of INARCO Ltd. to it.
Respondent Contention 
  • We did not create this subsidiary company to avoid payment of bonus to the workmen.
  • The Aril Holdings (subsidiary company) was amalgamated with the Rubber Industry in 1971. This circumstance shows that initial creation was not a device of avoidance. 

Issue 

  1. Whether the workmen will be entitled to get higher bonus ?
  2. Whether the subsidiary company was created for the loss of workmen?.

Case History and Ratio Decidendi 

Industrial Tribunal and High Court of Gujrat 

  • Held. : 'The Rubber Industry' and 'Aril Holding' were independent companies with separate legal existence. Therefore, the profit made by Aril holding could not be treated as profit earned by the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. for the purpose of computing the gross profits earned by the Rubber Industry. 
  • No evidence found that the transfer of shares to Aril Holding Ltd. was only a device to avoid payment of bonus to the workmen.
Ratio Decidendi of Supreme Court 

  • It is duty of the court, in every case where ingenuity is expended to avoid taxing and welfare legislation, to discover the truth and lift the corporate veil. 
  • CIT v Shri Krishna Mills -  The Court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade, in certain exceptional cases
  • In the present case , A new company is created wholly 
    • owned by the principal company, 
    • with no assets of its own, except those transferred to it by the principal company and 
    • serving no purpose except to reduce the gross profits of the company.
  • The Court found that the obvious purpose of the second company was to reduce the amount to be paid by way of  bonus to the  workmen. 
Judgment 
  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The workmen of the Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. are entitled to be paid bonus at the rate of 16% for the year 1961.


 







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more