Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2014 | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)
File Caveat in Supreme Court
Contact Ph no: +9650499965

Main Categories
 Accident Law
 Animal Laws
 Aviation Law
 Bangladesh Law
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Drug laws
 Dubai laws
 Educational laws
 Employment / Labour laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Gay laws and Third Gender
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Real estate laws
 Right To Information
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.


Published : August 10, 2016 | Author : monu
Category : Company Law | Total Views : 3278 | Rating :

Poonam Bera, law student at Army Institute of Law.

Doctrine of Alter Ego and Attribution

The basic tenet of the corporation law is that the corporation is a separate legal personality apart from its owner and managing directors. One of the Advantages of such tenet is that it provides shareholders, directors and other officers of the corporation with limited liability protecting them from the obligations and acts of the corporations.

This advantage has certainly resulted into a disadvantage to the creditors and others who have certain interest in it as one can use a corporation as a “mere shell” in an attempt to further his own business rather than the business of the corporation and to avoid his personal liability.

Piercing The Corporate Veil And Doctrine Of Alter Ego-

If the owner, managing directors, or the shareholders use the corporation as an instrumentality to do their own personal business or to achieve any wrongful gain they may be held personally responsible for the acts done under the shield of corporate veil by applying the doctrine of alter ego.

Individual who has formed a corporation is a part of the personality of the corporation and such separate personality of the individual cannot be seen without lifting the corporate veil.

Doctrine of Alter Ego-

The term alter ego can be described as the part of someone’s personality that is usually not seen by the others. This doctrine was further explained in the case of International Aircraft Trading Co. v Manufacturers Trust Co. as

“When a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator's business instead of its own it will be called the individual’s alter ego. Since the business owner and the corporation are alter egos, they are merely two sides of the same coin.”

Owners and the persons who manage the affairs of the company are considered as the alter ego of the company because there is such a unity of interest in the ownership that the separate personality of the company and the owner or shareholder does not exists. A company is deemed to be one and the same as the owner of the company and vis a vis.

Inception And Evolution of This Doctrine

The concept of alter ego is a common law principle and has further developed by the judicial pronouncements.

“A corporation is a separate legal entity distinct from its members. It acts through living persons and the persons who acts for the company are not acting as an agent or a servant but are acting as an alter ego as they are an embodiment of the company and their mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then the guilt is the guilt of the company.” as observed in the case of Tesco Supermarket Ltd. V. Nattrass

However there is uncertainty regarding the application of this doctrine. Where a business entity and its controlling owner are alter egos, under the reverse-piercing doctrine the piercing flows in the opposite direction and makes the corporation liable for the debt of the owner.

Liability Under of Directors Under Alter Ego Doctrine-

Directors and other persons who have control over the management of affairs of the company can be held liable for the acts committed by or on the behalf of the company under the doctrine of alter ego Since the corporation has no mind of its own any more than a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation. But it was also relied that the principle of alter ego has always been applied in reverse, so the acts of the individuals, who is in the control of the affairs of the company are attributed to the company not vice versa.

Current Status of It In India

In India, the position regarding the criminal liability of company was made clear in the case of Standard Chartered Bank and Others V. Directorate of Enforcement and Others wherein it was observed that

“A company is liable to be prosecuted for the criminal offence although act may be committed through its agent.”

Further in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. V Motorola Incorporation And Others, while applying the doctrine of attribution and imputation it was observed that

“The group of the persons guiding and controlling affairs of the company or corporation regarded as alter ego of the company. The criminal intent of the alter ego of the corporation i.e. the person or group of the persons that guide the business of the company would be imputed to the corporation.”

In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal V CBI and others, the court through special judge while applying this doctrine observed that the managing directors and directors can be considered alter ego of the companies and the acts of the companies are to be attributed and imputed to them. The Special Judge held that in light of the capacity in which these directors acted, they can be considered as the persons controlling the affairs of the company and the directing mind and will of the respective companies.

Later this order was challenged before the apex court. Apex court while rejecting the order pronounced by the special judge observed that this order would run contrary to the principle of vicarious liability detailing the circumstances under which a direction of a company can be held liable. The special judge applied the doctrine in the reverse direction but the apex court observed that the principle of alter ego can only be applied in one direction that is to make the company liable for an act committed by a person or group of persons who control the affairs of the company as they represent the alter ego of the company; however it cannot be applied in reverse direction to make the directors of the company vicariously liable for an offence committed by the company in the absence of statutory provisions.

Owners of the limited liability company may structure their business in a manner similar to a corporation so that members and mangers are shielded from personal liability for the debts or criminal liabilities of the company. It is difficult to ascertain the personality of an individual from that of corporation as an individual is considered as an alter ego of the corporation. Thus certain compelling circumstances and material on record must exists before the court for invoking the doctrine of alter ego. Further this doctrine is required to be incorporated as a statutory provision for regulating the behavior of the corporation.

End notes
# In re Phillips, 139 P.3d 639, 644 (Colo. 2006)
# 297 NY 285, 292 (1948)
# Rohmer Assoc., Inc. v Rohmer 2007 NY Slip Op 00030 (36 AD3d 990)
# Sheffield Servs. Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 720 (Colo. App. 2009)
# [1971] UKHL 1
# Sweeney, Cohn, Stahl & Vaccaro v. Kane, 6 A.D.3d 72, 75 (2d Dep’t 2004).
# Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923.
# Lennard’s Carrying Co. V. Asiatic Petroleum Co [1915] AC 705.
# Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923.
# (2005) 4 SCC 405
# AIR2011SC20
# AIR2015SC923
# Kaycee Land & Livestock v. Flahive, 46 P.3d 323 (Wyo. 2002)

1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor

Most viewed articles in Company Law category
Globalization & its impact on Indian Economy: Developments and Challenges
Winding Up of a Company
Retrenchment under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Dissolution of partnership firm
Articles of Association & Alteration of Articles
ADR Mechanism in India
Which employees do not fall under the ambit of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Demerger under Company Law
Directors & Their Liabilities
Corporate Personality
Position of a promoter in establishing a Company
Prevention of oppression & mismanagement
Appointment, Disqualification And Liabilities Of Directors of A Company: A Legal Perspective
Remuneration of Directors
Position of Directors In A Company
Minority Rights on Oppression and Mismanagement Under Companies Act, 1956 And Companies Bill, 2011
Most recent articles in Company Law category
How to convert One Person Company to Private Limited Company
Risk Management and Corporate Management
Procedure for declaration and payment of interim dividend by the board of directors
Holding first Meeting of Board of Directors of a Company Under Companies Act 2013
One person company
Payment of compensation for loss of office of MD or WTD or Manager
Appointment of a director other than a retiring director in the General Meeting
Principle of Lifting the Corporate Veil
Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006
Articles of Association
Distinction between Companies Act 1956 and Companies Act 2013
Role of Proxy Advisory Firms In Corporate Governance
Need For Corporate Social Responsibility
Fast Track mergers
Corporate Social Responsibility
Winding up of a Private Limited Company under Companies Act, 2013

Article Comments

there are no comments...

Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
Property has a very wider meaning in its real sense. It not only includes money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth...

» Total Articles
» Total Authors
» Total Views
» Total categories

Law Forum

Legal Articles

Lawyers in India- Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Guwahati
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Dimapur
lawyers in Agra
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Siliguri

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
Faridabad lawyers

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Ghaziabad lawyers

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Ludhiana
Gurgaon lawyers


India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2017
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3