Unadjudicated pleadings do not determine statutory status, while mandamus requires prior demand and demonstrated refusal of mandatory duty.

An unadjudicated assertion in pleadings before the Supreme Court establishes only that the assertion was made; it neither declares law under Article 141 nor determines an entity's applicable statutory regime. That regime must be assessed under the governing framework based on the entity's objects, activities, operational area and relevant circumstances. Mandamus ordinarily requires a distinct prior demand for performance of a mandatory duty and a subsequent refusal or neglect within a reasonable time. Without evidence of such demand and refusal, and where jurisdiction over the entity is disputed, mandamus is not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assertion in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court, without adjudication on that assertion, binds other courts or determines the statutory regime governing an entity; (ii) Whether mandamus could issue without a prior demand to the statutory authorities and their refusal or neglect to act.

Issue (i): Whether an assertion in pleadings filed before the Supreme Court, without adjudication on that assertion, binds other courts or determines the statutory regime governing an entity.

Analysis: The status of the Supreme Court as a court of record preserves the authenticity of its records and establishes that a pleading was made; it does not confer binding legal force upon an unadjudicated assertion in that pleading. Binding force under Article 141 attaches to law declared through a decision, namely the ratio arising from questions raised and decided, and not to a party's averment on which no finding was rendered. The applicable statutory regime must be determined under the governing statutory framework, having regard to the entity's objects, activities, area of operation and relevant circumstances, and cannot depend on a party's admission, understanding or assertion.

Conclusion: An unadjudicated assertion in Supreme Court pleadings neither constitutes a declaration of law nor conclusively establishes the statutory regime governing the entity; this issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether mandamus could issue without a prior demand to the statutory authorities and their refusal or neglect to act.

Analysis: Ordinarily, mandamus requires a demonstrated failure to perform a mandatory duty. The applicant must first make a distinct demand requiring performance and establish refusal or neglect by the concerned authority within a reasonable time. No prior complaint, representation, demand, or refusal was established. Further, the statutory authority had asserted absence of jurisdiction, authority and control over the entity, rendering the premise of the requested directions doubtful.

Conclusion: In the absence of a prior demand and refusal, no mandamus was warranted; this issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant could not rely on an unadjudicated pleading to establish applicability of the asserted corporate law regime, and the prerequisites for invoking mandamus were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A pleading recorded in proceedings before a court of record has no binding substantive force absent adjudication, and mandamus ordinarily requires a prior demand for performance of a mandatory duty followed by refusal or neglect.

---