#corporate veil

The NCLAT upheld jurisdiction under Section 60(5) IBC to direct buyer's directors to pay Rs. 3 crore in unpaid BPA consideration, piercing the corporate veil to impose personal liability on them as controlling minds. This empowers liquidators to pursue directors personally for unpaid acquisition dues, affirming corporate structure cannot shield controlling persons from contractual obligations in insolvency.

The Delhi High Court upheld arrest warrants against an authorized representative for concealing bank assets during execution of an arbitral award, holding that Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC imposes personal liability despite the corporate veil.

The Supreme Court confirmed that a decree issued by Ras Al Khaimah’s Investment Authority is enforceable in India under Section 44A CPC, dismissed a contempt petition based on an ambiguous undertaking, and mandated the respondents to furnish an additional security of Rs 200 crore, leaving any corporate veil-piercing questions to the execution courts. This clarifies cross-border decree enforcement and limits contempt claims tied to vague undertakings.

Supreme Court rules that subsidiaries functioning as mere alter egos of the corporate debtor justify piercing the corporate veil, enabling resolution plans to proceed without GNIDA’s prior consent if dues are settled. This precedent strengthens creditor rights in real estate insolvency cases by preventing statutory authorities from obstructing CIRP completion.

CESTAT Hyderabad rules that importers cannot be held liable for additional customs duty under CVD when independent distributors later alter MRP labels after clearance. The decision shields importers from retrospective liability arising from downstream commercial actions, reinforcing the separation between importation and post-clearance pricing decisions under the Customs Tariff Act.

Rajasthan High Court rules that the corporate veil cannot be pierced in execution proceedings without proof of fraud, specific pleadings, or statutory mandate. The court held that environmental principles like 'polluter pays' cannot substitute for substantive adjudication under the CPC, reinforcing natural justice in execution cases.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, deemed conveyance cannot include land acquired through incentive-based FSI if owned by a separate corporate entity. This clarifies that promoters cannot leverage third-party land or corporate structures to expand conveyance obligations, protecting cooperative societies from ambiguous title claims and reinforcing the link between development and ownership.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that lifting corporate veil in execution proceedings requires proof of fraud or statutory mandate, not mere liability of a company.

Bombay High Court holds that directors cannot be held personally liable for Employees' State Insurance dues under Section 45A; liability rests solely with the company.