NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019
Before
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL PETITION NO.____OF 2019 FILED BY GOVT. OF INDIA
UNDER SECTIONS 9, 15 & 20 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL VIS-À-VIS STRICT LIABILITY
AND
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA....……………...…………………………………………PETITIONER
V.
SKL AND FKL……………………..…………..………………..…………..…....RESPONDENT
MARCH 2019
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS _____________________________________________________ 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ______________________________________________________ 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION _________________________________________________ 6
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS _________________________________________________________ 7
ISSUES RAISED______________________________________________________________ 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS____________________________________________________ 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ____________________________________________________ 11
1. THE SUIT FILED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE. __________________ 11
1.1. Issue of Maintainability is not a subject matter in the Final Hearing. __________ 11
1.1.1. Issue of Maintainability to be Raised at the Earliest Stage Possible. _______ 11
1.1.2. Background of Facts, Circumstances and Time Factor Relevant to entertain
Preliminary Objections. _______________________________________________ 12
1.2. Govt. of India has the Capacity to file a Suit for Damages in the present Suit. __ 12
1.3. SKL has been Rightfully Impleaded, as it is a Necessary Party to the Suit. _____ 13
1.4. A Foreign Company can be sued in aIndia Court. ________________________ 13
1.4.1. Cause of Action arises in India. ____________________________________ 13
2. THE CORPORATE VEIL SO UNFURLED SHOULD BE PIERCED IN ORDER TO MAKE SKL
ABSOLUTELY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS. _________________________________________ 14
2.1. The Corporate Veil between SKL and FKL should be Pierced. ______________ 14
2.1.1. SKL and FKL are one Single Economic Unit. _________________________ 14
2.1.2. FKL, the subsidiary is an Agent of SKL, the parent company. ____________ 15
2.2. Indian Judicial Pronouncements Supporting tearing of the Corporate Veil. _____ 15
2.2.1. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy and its relevance in the Instant suit. ____________ 16
2.2.2. Other Indian Judicial Pronouncements ______________________________ 16
2.3. International Judicial Pronouncements Supporting tearing of the Corporate Veil. 17
2.4. SKL and FKL should be Absolutely Liable for the loss. ___________________ 17
PRAYER ________________________________________________________________ 19
PAGE 2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH
¶¶ PARAGRAPHS
S. SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ALL. ALLAHABAD
ANR ANOTHER
ART ARTICLE
ARTS ARTICLES
CAL. CALCUTTA
CO. COMPANY
CPC CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
E D. EDITION
ENT. ENTRY
GOVT. GOVERNMENT
HON’BLE HONOURABLE
I.E. ID EST
IBID IBIDEM
IN RE IN REFERENCE
LTD. LIMITED
M.P. MADHYA PRADESH
NO. NUMBER
ORS OTHERS
P. PAGE
PP. PAGES
PVT. PRIVATE
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCH. SCHEDULE
PAGE 3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1. CASES
Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr.,
2010 (42) Ptc 361 (Del). 15
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 1480 13
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P.) Ltd.,
1996(4) SCC 622 18
DHN Food Distributors Ltd. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council,
(1976) 1 WLR 852. 19
Faiza Ben Hashem v. Abdulhadi Ali Shayyif & Others, [2008]
EWHC 2380 (Fam). 19
GilfordMotor Co Ltd v. Horne, [1933] Ch 935 19
Hackerbridge-Hewittic and Easun ltd v. GEC distribution transformers ltd,
[1992] (74) Comp. Cas. 543 17
Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wakefield) v. Caddies (1955) 1 WLR 352 17
Ishwarlal Hiralal Gunderia v. Union Of India And Ors, 1990 (2) BomCR 232,
1990 CriLJ 615 13
J. Sinu Simon v. The Debts Recovery Appellate, (2007) 3 MLJ 581 (Mad) 12
Jai Narain Parasurampuria (Dead) and others v. Pushpa Devi Saraf and others,
(2006) 7 SCC 756. 18
Jones v. Lipman, [1962] 1 WLR 832. 19
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1. 18
Kulamani Behera v. Jayanta Samal and Anr, 97 (2004) CLT 449,
2004 I OLR 336 12
LIC v. Escorts, 1986 AIR 1370 16
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 16
Meher Singh v. Deepak Sawhny and Anr, (1) BomCR 107,
1998 (3) MhLj 940 12
PAGE 4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Nandkishore Bhandari and Anr v. Pavanpurta Co-Op. Housing Sty,
2012(5) BomCR 53 13
Prabodh v. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 14
Richard Brandy Tanks Ltd v. Price, (1937) 58 LLR 159 16
Scottish Corporative Wholesale Society v. Meyer (1959) AC 324 17
Sri Lakshminarayana Panigrahi v. Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple,
2001(2) AnWR 653 12
State of Rajasthan and [Link] of India and Ors.,AIR 1977 SC 1361 14
State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 127. 17
The Roberta (1937) 58 LLR 159 17
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1988 MPJR 233 17
2. STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 15
Companies Act, 1956 14
Companies Act, 2006 12
3. BOOKS AND JOURNALS
A.K. Mazumdar, Company Law and Practice, (16th ed., 2011). 17
Andrew Hicks, S.H. Goo,
Cases And Materials On Company Law, (6th Ed., 2008) 16
Glaskox, 614 So. 2d at 907 n.1 (Miss. 1992) 13
Gower and Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law 16
Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, P. 1249, (9th Ed., 2009). 13
Pennington, Company Law (5th Ed. 1985). 18
V. G. Ramachandra, Law of Writs (6th Ed., 2006 Vol. 2) 14
William Mack, Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, (Vol. 38, 1991) 14
PAGE 5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly approaches this Hon’ble District Court under Ss. 9, 15 and 20 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
PAGE 6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. BACKGROUND OF SARDAR KHAN LIMITED (SKL)
SKL is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2006 of the Zaniland, having its
registered office at Swenska Islands. It had incorporated about 20 companies in various
countries of the world with presence in power generation, chemicals, dies, pesticides and
pharmaceuticals sectors.
2. BACKGROUND OF FAIZAL KHAN LIMITED (FKL)
FKL is registered under the Companies Act, 1956, for generating electricity using new
technology developed by SKL. The registered office of FKL is at India.
3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SKL AND FKL
FKL is a wholly owned subsidiary (750 Crores of investment) ofSKL. FKL and SKL had a
technology transfer agreement, which contained a profit sharing agreement between them.
4. ENSUING EVENTS
a. The Meterology Department of India cautions all the coastal states about the possibility of
heavy wind and huge rainfall.
b. Many states including the India evacuated people to safe places.
c. However, due to the leak of materials from the facility of FKL at the time of heavy wind,
private and public property worth tens and thousands of crores was damaged.
5. SUIT FOR DAMAGES
Since, the laws of India impose absolute liability on corporations for such losses, the
Government of India files a suit for damages from FKL. SKL, the parent company of FKL, is
also included as one of the Respondents. The Government of India pleaded for piercing the veil
of incorporation. The matter is listed for final hearing.
PAGE 7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
ISSUES RAISED
The following questions are presented before this hon’ble court in the instant matter:
1. Whether or not suit for damages filed by the Govt. of India is maintainable?
2. Whether or not the corporate veil so unfurled should be pierced in order to make
SKL liable for the loss?
3. Whether the principle of strict liability must be invoked in the present case?
PAGE 8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE APPEAL FILED BY GOVT. OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.
The present suit for damages is maintainable for three reasons. First, Govt. of India has the
required capacity under the principle of parens patriae. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
mollit anim id est [Link],SKL has been rightfully impleaded as a Respondent as it
is a necessary party. Lastly, foreign companies can be sued in India Courts.
2. THE CORPORATE VEIL SO UNFURLED SHOULD BE PIERCED IN ORDER TO MAKE SKL
LIABLE FOR THE LOSS.
The Corporate Veil should be pierced for two reasons. First, SKL and FKL are one
single economic unit and FKL is SKL’s agent. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
mollit anim id est laborum. Lastly, SKL and FKL are liable for the damage caused by FKL.
3. THE PRINCIPLE OF STRICT LIABILITY MUST BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE TO
MAKE SKL LIABLE FOR THE LOSS.
The principle of strict liability should be invoked for two reasons. Lorem ipsum dolor sit
amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna
PAGE 9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
ea commodo consequat.
Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt
mollit anim id est [Link],SKL and FKL are strictly liable for the damage caused by
FKL.
PAGE 10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE SUIT FILED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE.
1.1. ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER IN THE FINAL HEARING.
The present case …..lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
the suit.1
1.1.1. ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY TO BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST STAGE POSSIBLE.
The rationale….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
finally determined.2
It has….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
belated stage.3
1
Meher Singh v. Deepak Sawhny and Anr, (1) BomCR 107, 1998 (3) MhLj 940.
2
Ibid.
3
Sri Lakshminarayana Panigrahi v. Sri Jagannadhaswamy Temple, 2001(2)AnWR653.
PAGE 11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1.1.2. BACKGROUND OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND TIME FACTOR RELEVANT TO
ENTERTAIN PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS.
It has….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborumbe judicious.4
In the….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborumof losses.
Since, the….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
present case.
1.2. GOVT. OF INDIA HAS THE CAPACITY TO FILE A SUIT FOR DAMAGES IN THE PRESENT
SUIT.
Govt. of India….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
4
Supra note 9.
PAGE 12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
nominal party.5
In all….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
private property.
1.3. SKL HAS BEEN RIGHTFULLY IMPLEADED, AS IT IS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE SUIT.
SKL in…. lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
present suit.
1.4. A FOREIGN COMPANY CAN BE SUED IN AINDIACOURT.
SKL is…. lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
such companies.
1.4.1. CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES IN INDIA.
S. 20(c) of….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
5
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 1480.
PAGE 13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laboruma Respondent.
1.4.2. SKL THROUGH FKL SPECIFICALLY TARGETED INDIA FOR ITS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.
Where the….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
India.
2. THE CORPORATE VEIL SO UNFURLED SHOULD BE PIERCED IN ORDER
TO MAKE SKLSTRICTLYLIABLE FOR THE LOSS.
FKL, the ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
anim id est laborum affected.6
1.1. THE CORPORATE VEIL BETWEEN SKL AND FKL SHOULD BE PIERCED.
1.1.1. SKL AND FKL ARE ONE SINGLE ECONOMIC UNIT.
The court ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
6
Ibid.
PAGE 14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
the groups.7
It has ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
subsidiary company.8
In light ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
FKL.
1.1.2. FKL, THE SUBSIDIARY IS AN AGENT OF SKL, THE PARENT COMPANY.
It is ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
the SKL.
1.2. INDIAN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTING TEARING OF THE CORPORATE
VEIL.
7
Gower and Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law,p. 181.
8
The Roberta (1937) 58 LLR 159; Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wakefield) v. Caddies (1955) 1 WLR 352;
Scottish Corporative Wholesale Society v. Meyer (1959) AC 324.
PAGE 15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1.2.1. THE BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY AND ITS RELEVANCE IN THE INSTANT SUIT.
In the….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
anim id est laborum worldwide plans.9
It is ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
anim id est laborum Respondent liable.
1.2.2. OTHER INDIAN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
The Apex Court ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
anim id est laborum the company”.10
In light ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
9
Ibid.
10
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1.
PAGE 16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit
anim id est laborumin India.11
1.3. INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SUPPORTING TEARING OF THE
CORPORATE VEIL.
In DHN….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
compensation accordingly.”
Accordingly, FKL….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
caused by FKL.
1.4. SKL AND FKL SHOULD BE STRICTLY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS.
The principle ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborumto take place.12
11
Supra note 46.
12
Ibid.
PAGE 17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
It has been …. lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum
Gas Leak case gave.13
In the present ….lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
laborumso caused.
13
Ibid.
PAGE 18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
PRAYER
In light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly
prays before this Hon’ble to adjudge and declare that:
1. The appeal filed by Govt. of India is maintainable.
2. The corporate veil in the present case should be lifted.
3. FKL and SKL should be made strictly liable for the loss cause.
The Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the Court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed.
Sd./-
Counsel for Petitioner
PAGE 19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER