Just a moment...
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 a writ of mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus, and consequential declaratory relief, could be granted against a company incorporated under the Companies Act in respect of a private agreement relating to retrenchment of workmen.
Analysis: Mandamus lies only to secure performance of a public or statutory duty in respect of which the applicant has a corresponding legal right. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not, merely by reason of government shareholding or control over directors, a statutory body discharging public duties. Where the dispute concerns an agreement between such a company and its workmen, the obligation sought to be enforced is of a private character and not a public or statutory duty. Once the writ petition itself is misconceived and not maintainable against the company, the court cannot enlarge the relief by issuing a declaration invalidating the agreement. The proper remedy, if any, lies under the Industrial Disputes Act by raising an industrial dispute.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the company, and no declaratory relief could be granted in writ proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Mandamus and consequential declaratory relief cannot be issued against a non-statutory company in respect of obligations of a private character unless the act complained of involves breach of a public or statutory duty.