https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97386 Mandamus under Article 226 lies only to enforce a public or statutory duty, and it cannot be used to enforce private contractual rights arising from a company's memorandum and articles. Where the dispute concerns alleged invalidity of a resolution affecting managing agency rights, the proper remedy is a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief, including injunction or damages, if available. The existence of an adequate ordinary civil remedy weighs against writ relief, and Article 226 does not enlarge mandamus beyond its settled limits. Claims based on fundamental rights or alleged want of jurisdiction were rejected on the stated facts because the controversy remained a private rights dispute against a private company. en-us Tue, 14 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97386 Mandamus under Article 226 lies only to enforce a public or statutory duty, and it cannot be used to enforce private contractual rights arising from a company's memorandum and articles. Where the dispute concerns alleged invalidity of a resolution affecting managing agency rights, the proper remedy is a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief, including injunction or damages, if available. The existence of an adequate ordinary civil remedy weighs against writ relief, and Article 226 does not enlarge mandamus beyond its settled limits. Claims based on fundamental rights or alleged want of jurisdiction were rejected on the stated facts because the controversy remained a private rights dispute against a private company. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 14 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97386