LexS SHOBHA versus MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1147 : 2025 INSC 117 S Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 2625-2627 of 2025) 24 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-Muthoot Finance Ltd. is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.12 and 226 – The Division Bench of the High Court held that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution: Held: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental; (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function; (3) Although, a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the 1148 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports company; (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty; (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule – In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty ; (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body; (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced – The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action – The Division Bench of the High Court is right in taking the view that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution – Thus, no case for interference made out. [Paras 3, 9] Case Law Cited LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. [1984] 3 SCR 643 : AIR 1986 SC 1370 – referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, 12 p.682. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords State; Article 12 of Constitution; Muthoot Finance Ltd.; Authority; Statutory body; Instrumentality or agency of the State; Company financed and owned by the State; Private body run substantially on State funding; Private body discharging public duty. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1149 S Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition(C) No(s). 2625-2627 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2024 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA Nos. 418, 490 and 491 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Brajesh Kumar, Saurav Kumar, Ms. Neha Kumari Singh, Sachin Verma. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Delay condoned. 2. The High Court in its impugned order has observed in para 5 as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.