<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (1) TMI 557 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108681</link>
    <description>Separate corporate personality between a holding company and its subsidiary is ordinarily respected, and the veil may be lifted only in exceptional cases such as fraud, evasion of obligation, abuse of form, agency, or similar compelling circumstances. On the stated facts, distinct incorporation, boards, finances, and creditors, together with no guarantee or common employment policy, meant the subsidiary&#039;s workmen could not be treated as workmen of the holding company. Section 529A priority applies only to workmen of the company actually in winding up, so the subsidiary&#039;s employees had no enforceable claim against the holding company&#039;s liquidation assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:10:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 557 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108681</link>
      <description>Separate corporate personality between a holding company and its subsidiary is ordinarily respected, and the veil may be lifted only in exceptional cases such as fraud, evasion of obligation, abuse of form, agency, or similar compelling circumstances. On the stated facts, distinct incorporation, boards, finances, and creditors, together with no guarantee or common employment policy, meant the subsidiary&#039;s workmen could not be treated as workmen of the holding company. Section 529A priority applies only to workmen of the company actually in winding up, so the subsidiary&#039;s employees had no enforceable claim against the holding company&#039;s liquidation assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>