Company Law

• Main Authors: PUCHNIAK, Dan W., TAN Cheng Han, TANG Samantha S.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2019
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Business Organizations Law
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4029; https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_rmit_collectionsjats_search_informit_org_doi_10_3316_informit_794062721300242&context=PC&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,Singapore%20Academy%20of%20Law%20annual%20review%20of%20Singapore%20cases%202018%20company%20law&offset=0
• Institution: Singapore Management University

In Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra v Salgaocar Anil Vassudeva1 the High Court had for the first time to definitively deal with the question of reverse piercing of the corporate veil. Typical veil piercing (or “standard veil piercing”, which was the term used by Kannan Ramesh J) takes place when a third party such as a creditor of a company seeks to hold a shareholder or director of that company liable for an obligation owed to such third party by the company. Reverse veil piercing on the other hand involves claims by a third party against a person who is also an insider of a company where such third party seeks relief not only against the insider but also against the company. Such reverse piercing is also known as outsider reverse piercing because it is the third party who is seeking veil piercing