<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1382 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293916</link>
    <description>A corporate veil in admiralty matters may be pierced only where fraud or sham formation is specifically pleaded with particulars and supported by material sufficient to sustain the allegation at trial; mere common ownership, common address, similar management, or board resolutions is insufficient, and the sister-ship claim failed. A plaint seeking arrest and continued security must also contain the requisite particulars of dishonesty, and later material cannot cure a foundational pleading defect; the plaintiff&#039;s failure to pursue its arbitration undertaking further undermined the claim. The motion succeeded, security was ordered to be returned, and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 08:45:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1382 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293916</link>
      <description>A corporate veil in admiralty matters may be pierced only where fraud or sham formation is specifically pleaded with particulars and supported by material sufficient to sustain the allegation at trial; mere common ownership, common address, similar management, or board resolutions is insufficient, and the sister-ship claim failed. A plaint seeking arrest and continued security must also contain the requisite particulars of dishonesty, and later material cannot cure a foundational pleading defect; the plaintiff&#039;s failure to pursue its arbitration undertaking further undermined the claim. The motion succeeded, security was ordered to be returned, and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>