Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
S. Shobha – Appellant
Versus
Muthoot Finance Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The High Court in its impugned order has observed in para 5 as under:-
5.1 Once the above position is clear, the writ petitions would not lie against the respondent – Company. Learned Single Judge could not have, therefore, entertained the petitions on that ground alone.
5.2 Noticeably, learned Single Judge was aware of the said aspect that the respondent – Company did not have the status of the”State” under Articl
A private company does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not subject to writ jurisdiction unless it performs a public duty.
Writ petitions against private entities are not maintainable under Article 226 unless public law elements are involved; termination from a private company does not invoke judicial review.
Writs cannot be issued against private entities as they do not perform public duties, reaffirming the limits of Article 12 applicability.
Point of law : Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be available against an authority or a person only when twin tests are satisfied. The authority or the person should not onl....
AWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a scheduled bank on the ground that the business of banking does not fall within the expression “public duty”.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
