https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448916 Kerala HC held that the respondent company constitutes an instrumentality of the Union of India under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. Despite the State Government holding only 3% shares, the company had decisive government representation through two directors out of twelve on the Board, with SIDBI nominating one-third of directors including Chairman and Managing Director. The court noted that both State and Central Governments specifically considered the respondent as a Central Government company, with accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General treating it as a deemed Government company. The company was also recognized as an accredited Government agency for public works. The HC reversed the single judge's finding that the writ petition was not maintainable and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. en-us Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2024 14:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448916 Kerala HC held that the respondent company constitutes an instrumentality of the Union of India under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. Despite the State Government holding only 3% shares, the company had decisive government representation through two directors out of twelve on the Board, with SIDBI nominating one-third of directors including Chairman and Managing Director. The court noted that both State and Central Governments specifically considered the respondent as a Central Government company, with accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General treating it as a deemed Government company. The company was also recognized as an accredited Government agency for public works. The HC reversed the single judge's finding that the writ petition was not maintainable and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448916