BINNY LTD. AND ANR. versus V. SADASIVAN AND ORS.

BINNY LTD. AND ANR. versus V. SADASIVAN AND ORS.

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 is available only when the party sought to be proceeded against discharges a public function; purely contractual private disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless a public law element is involved. The termination of employment by the private company did not involve public policy or public law element, therefore the High Court's declaration that clause 8 of the employment contract is void is set aside. The remedy for employees lies in civil or labour law, not in writ adjudication.

Parties
Appellant: Binny Ltd.; Respondents: V. Sadasivan and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Madras High Court in W.p. No. 11862 of 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed in Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 1998; declaration by High Court set aside. Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6016 of 2002 dismissed; parties may seek remedy before appropriate forum.
Legal Topics
Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction, Mandamus, Enforcement of Contractual Duties, Public Law Remedy Vs. Private Law Remedy
Constitutional Law Contract Law Labour Law Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction Mandamus Enforcement of Contractual Duties Public Law Remedy Vs. Private Law Remedy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binny Ltd.

Appellant

V. Sadasivan and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Madras High Court in W.p. No. 11862 of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether writ remedy under Article 226 can be invoked against a private party discharging contractual duties
  2. 2 Whether contractual duties are enforceable by writ of mandamus
  3. 3 Whether contracts of employment terminated under clause violate Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 and public policy

Ratio Decidendi

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 is available only when the party sought to be proceeded against discharges a public function; purely contractual private disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless a public law element is involved. The termination of employment by the private company did not involve public policy or public law element, therefore the High Court's declaration that clause 8 of the employment contract is void is set aside. The remedy for employees lies in civil or labour law, not in writ adjudication.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 1998; declaration by High Court set aside. Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6016 of 2002 dismissed; parties may seek remedy before appropriate forum.

Orders

  • Declaration ordered by High Court is set aside.
  • Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 1998 allowed to the extent indicated.