Skip to main content

Government cannot be made responsible for the liability of a PSU

In Hindustan Cables Vs. Tapan Kumar Sarkar, the Calcutta High Court held that a company may be under the control of the Central Government. However, in law, it is a separate legal entity. The age old principle of law laid down in Saloman v. Saloman, (1897) still holds fort. A limited company has an independent personality in the eye of law and has an identity separate from its shareholders or Board of Directors. Even a wholly held subsidiary of a company has an independent entity separate from that of the holding company. The Central Government may be the only or single largest shareholder of a limited company, but still the company has a distinct entity and its rights and liabilities cannot be attributed to the Central Government. Government companies do not become agents of the Government so as to bind the Government for their acts, liabilities and obligations as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, (supra). In M/s. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P., (supra), the Apex Court emphasised the clear distinction between a company and its shareholder even though the shareholder may be only one i.e. the Central Government or the State Government. In the case of State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D. U. Karmachari Sanstha (supra), the Supreme Court observed that a trade union representing the employees of a cooperative society cannot, by filing a writ petition, require the Government to bear and pay the salaries of the employees of the cooperative society, however pervasive the control of the State Government over such society.

The position in law is thus settled. Even if the Government is the sole shareholder of a company, the liabilities of the company cannot be said to be the liability of the Government. No doubt, the principle of ‘lifting of corporate veil’ has made an inroad into the concept of distinct legal entity of a limited company or corporation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more