https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103464 Approval for a wholly owned Indian subsidiary under the EHTP Scheme was held not to breach an earlier restraint against the foreign company entering into a joint venture or distributorship arrangement with a third party. The court reasoned that a 100 per cent subsidiary created and owned by the same foreign company did not involve pooling of resources between separate entities and therefore was not a joint venture. The earlier restraint was directed at third-party joint venture activity, not at establishing a subsidiary for permitted EHTP operations. The veil-piercing principle did not alter this position. The approval was therefore found not to infringe the restraint order, and writ relief was refused. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:42:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103464 Approval for a wholly owned Indian subsidiary under the EHTP Scheme was held not to breach an earlier restraint against the foreign company entering into a joint venture or distributorship arrangement with a third party. The court reasoned that a 100 per cent subsidiary created and owned by the same foreign company did not involve pooling of resources between separate entities and therefore was not a joint venture. The earlier restraint was directed at third-party joint venture activity, not at establishing a subsidiary for permitted EHTP operations. The veil-piercing principle did not alter this position. The approval was therefore found not to infringe the restraint order, and writ relief was refused. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 30 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103464