Case: M.V. Tongli Yantai Vs. Great Pacific Navication (Holdings) Corporation Limited

3. We may take up the contentions of the Petitioner separately enumerated thus:1) Authorities cited in the judgment by the Court itself and points not argued considered by the Court:Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner drew our attention to the case of M/s. Delta FoundationConstructions, Kochi Vs. Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd., AIR 2003 Kerala 201 to show that that was a ground for review and the case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. State of PunjabOrs. (1997) 7 SCC 339     which related to the reliance placed by the Court upon the specific statutory provision in the Municipal law for imposition of tax by the Municipalities upon considering which certain tax liabilities came to be imposed upon the State Government before obtaining their view in that behalf. Paragraph 102 of the judgment shows that when such a contention was not advanced by Counsel and liability was imposed, the Supreme Court kept in mind the rule of caution that ordinarily Courts should, particularly in constitutional matters, refrain from expressing opinions on points not raised or not fully and effectively argued by Counsel on either side.In this case we have considered the points argued before us and seen the documentary evidence produced before us and the further law based upon the facts shown to us. We may mention that it was for Counsel to bring to our notice all the evidence on record as also the jurisprudence developed on the questions of law before us. If any fact or case law on the aspect of law before us and required to be considered by us is, however, not adverted to, it is our bounden duty to take that into consideration which we believe we have done.The authorities cited by us though not relied upon by Counsel relate to the legal concept of beneficial ownership of a company and the legal concept of lifting of the corporate veil. The Petitioner has listed 18 such citations. This was a fundamental aspect which has been considered in our judgment based upon the facts of the case. Counsel argued extensively upon these aspects. In our judgment we have proceeded to consider these aspects from the meaning of the concept, the application of the general law relating to the doctrine of lifting of the corporate veil and the applicability of that doctrine specifically to cases of maritime claims with regard to arrest of ships of companies beneficially owned by another or managed by another company or in a group. We may mention that only upon the consideration of the entire jurisprudence in that regard could we have come to the conclusion that we did. We may also mention that we have not relied upon any judgment as a judgment covering the case in its entirety upon application of which we have based our order. If there was such a judgment not shown by both Counsel, but relied upon by the Court under which alone the order is passed, certainly we would keep the matter on board to show the Counsel, both of whom have not brought to our notice such a judgment by which the case is covered. That would be if we relied upon such judgment alone. This is not one such case. We would have expected Counsel themselves to point out to us the law on the subject as it developed. In the interest of justice we have undertaken that exercise. As the judgment would show we have distinguished certain cases, noted the principles therein and applied those principles to the facts of our case.The Petitioners Counsel made a grievance that Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of distinguishing those judgments. However in a good part of the forenoon session when the matter reached and was argued, none of these judgments have been distinguished. We, therefore, confirm our conclusions based upon those citations as they are in our judgment.Aside from the aforesaid judgment we are not shown which points were not argued before us. Based upon the points argued before us we have appreciated the documentary evidence produced before us which would be considered in appeal.

Reasoning:
We have observed that the learned single Judge has observed that two of the companies whose veil was sought to be lifted were not sued. Paragraph 136 of the judgment of the learned single Judge shows that the question of law relating to lifting the corporate veil would arise in "proceedings between" the Plaintiff and those companies. That could only be if the companies were sued. We read the judgment accordingly.19) Points pressed which were not taken in the judgment :Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment in the case of Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs. Chief Election OfficerOrs (2008) 2 SCC 95     in which it was held that in such a case a review would lie. Upon this judgment Counsel of the Petitioner has raised before us the aforesaid points which have been considered.We may mention that other than the aforesaid, no other point has been pressed before us in arguments and we refrain from considering any other.