https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335864 Writ jurisdiction against a private company is confined to cases involving a public duty or public function, so employment-related claims against a purely commercial entity do not ordinarily attract Article 226. The article notes that although the petition was filed when the employer was a State instrumentality, the subsequent takeover by a private entity could not be ignored where the respondent no longer fell within Article 12. It also explains that later events may inform moulding of relief, but cannot create writ maintainability where none exists. Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was held inapplicable to a writ proceeding, while a civil suit remained available and Section 14 of the Limitation Act could protect time spent in writ proceedings. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:30:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335864 Writ jurisdiction against a private company is confined to cases involving a public duty or public function, so employment-related claims against a purely commercial entity do not ordinarily attract Article 226. The article notes that although the petition was filed when the employer was a State instrumentality, the subsequent takeover by a private entity could not be ignored where the respondent no longer fell within Article 12. It also explains that later events may inform moulding of relief, but cannot create writ maintainability where none exists. Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was held inapplicable to a writ proceeding, while a civil suit remained available and Section 14 of the Limitation Act could protect time spent in writ proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335864