Re: Piercing of the corporate veil

1. IMC Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Deendayal Port Trust, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj
4972

Para 12
Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and material placed
on record, the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is a primary bidder
who has taken up the project and who has been awarded the contract and thereafter
the 2nd respondent - JRE is created as a Special Purpose Vehicle and the appellant
is, in fact, an alter ego of the 2nd respondent. It is further held that corporate veil
could be lifted or not has to be considered by the Tribunal keeping in mind the
underlying object and purpose of the Arbitration Act. The learned Single Judge
has also held that even though Concession Agreement may not have been signed by
the appellant, it would not make any change so far as the impleadment of the
petitioner is concerned and it cannot pose itself as a third party merely because it is
not a signatory to the agreement. Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme court in the case of Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent
Water Purification Inc. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 641 and also in the case of A.
Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam reported in (2016) 10 SCC 386, the learned Single
Judge has held that the word ‘party’ in the agreement is to be considered in broader
concept or by understanding the lifting of corporate veil. Further, the learned Single
Judge, while holding that the Arbitration Act has been enacted to provide a
mechanism of framework to settle the disputes and any narrow or restricted
interpretation which frustrates the object cannot be accepted, has rejected the plea
of the appellant. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has held that petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the
orders passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. By not accepting the plea of the
appellant that the order passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal is in violation of
principles of natural justice and without issuing notice as contemplated under Section
21 of the Arbitration Act, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
However, the learned Single Judge has observed that the observations made are
only for the purpose of deciding the petition prima-facie and all the contentions are
left open to be considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
 2. Purple Medical Solutions (P) Ltd. v. MIV Therapeutics Inc., (2015) 15 SCC
622
Para 12
Para 14