Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Periyar Latex (P.) Ltd. was State or other authority within the meaning of articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the writ petition challenging termination of service was maintainable.
Analysis: The determination depended on the constitution, functions and actual control of the company. The mere fact that the Rubber Board held more than 50% of the shares and had some nominees on the board was held insufficient. The company's management remained with the board of directors, the Rubber Board was only in a minority, there was no pervasive governmental control, the company was a privately subscribed private company, and its business of production, manufacture and sale of rubber was commercial rather than governmental or public in character. Applying the settled tests for identifying State or authority, the company did not answer that description.
Conclusion: The company was not State or authority for the purposes of articles 12 and 226, and the writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the termination could not be pursued in writ jurisdiction against the company, and the petition stood rejected at the threshold.
Ratio Decidendi: A company is not State or authority merely because a government-controlled body holds a majority shareholding or has nominees on the board; decisive factors are real governmental control, public character of functions, and the overall institutional nature of the body.