Directing Mind and Will for Tesco Supermarkets Ltd- myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theDirecting Mind and Will for Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. Answer: Once a company is established then it has its own distinct personality and the conduct of the company is carried out on its own and is discussed in (Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd, 1897) . But, a company is not a living person. Thus, a company requires a kind of some living person who must carry out the functions of the company. Normally the persons who act as per the company are the directors, superior officers or managing directors of the company. They are called the directing mind and will of the company. Normally the directing mind and will of the company are those directors who are part of the articles or memorandums of the company or who by meetings are authorized with powers to represent the company. In the leading case ( Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass, 1972) and (Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd, 1915), it was held that the officers who represents the company and who are at higher positions and are entrusted with the powers through which they can take decisions and represent the company are called the directing mind and will of the company. In (Meridian Global Funds Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission, 1995), it was held that normally it is the attributes of the company that defines who the directing mind is and will of the company. Thus, normally it is the officers at the superior position who are considered to be the directing mind and will of the company. However, any person who has the power and authority to represent the company and his acts become the acts of the company, then, such person is considered to be the directing mind and will of the company. (Shodhganga, 2017) Piercing the corporate Veil Lifting of corporate veil or the piercing of the corporate veil is the legal phrase which emphasis on the situation wherein the duties and the rights of the company are regarded as the duties and rights of the company directors or shareholders. It is an exception to the Separate legal entity feature of a company. (Capuano, 2009) It is not in every situation that the separate legal personality of the company is shed away. But there are situations herein the corporate veil of the company is pierced and the acts of the company are considered to be the acts of the company shareholders and directors. normally, when the directors are avoiding any of their existing duty or when the acts of the company directors are sham, that is, the true purpose of the company is not comply with the directors or when the acts of the company directors are such that the same are incurring fraud on the company or when the directors are acting in such a manner so as to avoid the tax or when the court believe that lifting the veil would be in the interest of the public. Then in such situations, the separate legal personality of the company is disregard and the corporate veil of the company is pierced. (Vision, 2016) Bibliography Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass (1972). Capuano, A. (2009). The Realist's Guide to Piercing the Corporate Veil. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, . Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd (1915). Meridian Global Funds Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission (1995). Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd (1897). Shodhganga. (2017). Shodhganga. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES OF - Chapter 3: https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/107447/10/10_chapter%203.pdf Vision, t. L. (2016). Separate legal Entity. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from The Legal Vision: https://legalvision.com.au/how-can-a-court-pierce-the-corporate-veil/