2.2.5 Separate Property Shareholders are not, im the eyes ofthe Taw, part owners of the undertaking: In Ini, this principle af separate pruperty was best aid dawn by the Supeesne Court in Hacha F. Guzdar v ‘The Commissioner ef lneorne Tax Bombay (Supra). The Supreme Court held hat “aabarcholder lanot the part ownicr af the company ots property, be any gives cera rights By aw, e.- to vote er attend meelings te recive dividends" Soniary, in RF, Perumal v. H Jol i was observed that “no member ean cis himself tebe over of the company’s property Surg is testenceorenite winding In ail another cave i wnt mere that" evenseheteasbarebe et held almast eer share capital be didnot even have an incurable interest nthe property af tho company”. In Macaurev. Noribem Assarance Co, Lid. the facts were aa follows: ‘Neaciun’ held ll except one share ofa timber company. He had asp avant sthetantisl mount ko the compar. Hie insure the company timber fu hs peracmal name, On timber being destrayed by fice, hisclaim was rected for want insurable terest The Court applying principle of separate legal entity held thatthe insurance company was not Ube