lous LCase La ed +. Saleman V- Saleman£ Co. Ud Heide In nis case held that his cleanly, establishal the pucineple of Acpaxate legal errtily 2. Lee V. Lee’s Aix Jouning led (1967) Held 3> Tn this Case, a Compoeny Us as forme fon the punpase of denial Lop - cluvising - 3. Abdul tag, V- Pas Mal [Target fp 19- 45001037) Held3> In this (ase, the employee of a Comprony uns nat -_ paid his calauy for {es months: “he Court said that he must file a Case against the Company te wwerowe his 4olasy, becawe Hu Company. wa Aeporele Nal. ent UW. TR Rath (Bombay) lid Ys. ED. Sason4 (p ltd Held o> TH was eld trot " under the law, an dcop oxorted Company is a olds tinct entity, Ond though all the Ahaves muypbe Pasctiatty Combined Lug one powon.” 5. Macau, Vo. Nosetheen. Austen ce (Co. Led. (a25) Heldcs A pouon for exormple 6 the holden of nearly al ~— expt one eh a dimber Company R she Aubstonibial — Cuditor Ae dinsueed Lye dimberin du own name - The Tmbex Compe Uthe shares alsoa Company By Arewe Beor © scanned with OKEN Scannerdlstuoyed dhuy fiw she dnsuiane Company was Auld not” Mable de him: 6. Buitis A Thomsam Howton Company Vo Se exding ice ues d C1924) Held 5 Held 5 > 4 member of a Cem pony Cannot sue in sespet of tock (emmithd against ict nove (an be cued fort tocts Committed dey the Company. . * St. Toading loxponationel tudia Ltd. Vc Commer ciak Tax offic 3 “Held 3 Tt wos helt that nilther Hy potouisions of the Constitution of Inclia not the Ciligenship Aa either Confer Ehe uciotct ef uti Zimship on ‘ eg ag as clizen any peuwon thee than A natural pevon . @. Mpdvins Cordial Urban Bork Ltd. \V Corporation of Jackuas } ce U Held3> an Un conporcate Company us a (0 ie ~~ duct mony dredics Couporate at np Anconporate Companies c a. LIT Ve. Munakshi rpillsled (1966) elds > The Cowet Aas @ Power to deux are Coxporate entity 4 a used fol tax wosion ot to Cixtumvent tax - obligations nt [Target Jor J 500 003 © scanned with OKEN Scanner