https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103585 A holding company was said to be outside liability for a subsidiary's borrowing because the loan documents named only the borrower, and unilateral correspondence could not create a binding undertaking or justify piercing the corporate veil. The purported gift deed was ineffective because it sought to transfer a liability that had not been established against the defendant. Limitation also defeated the claim, as no valid acknowledgement by the defendant or its predecessor was proved, and references in subsidiary accounts did not amount to acknowledgement of the debt as the holding company's own. On amalgamation, only existing liabilities transferred, and the suit claim was not shown to be one of them. en-us Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:13:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103585 A holding company was said to be outside liability for a subsidiary's borrowing because the loan documents named only the borrower, and unilateral correspondence could not create a binding undertaking or justify piercing the corporate veil. The purported gift deed was ineffective because it sought to transfer a liability that had not been established against the defendant. Limitation also defeated the claim, as no valid acknowledgement by the defendant or its predecessor was proved, and references in subsidiary accounts did not amount to acknowledgement of the debt as the holding company's own. On amalgamation, only existing liabilities transferred, and the suit claim was not shown to be one of them. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103585