Report No. 145
2.10. Tests not exhaustive.-
It could be pointed out at this stage, that none of the tests which have come up for consideration in the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above is conclusive in itself, nor is the enumeration exhaustive.1 The financial contribution of the Government, its deep and pervasive control, the nature of the functions performed by the corporation, the monopolistic status of the corporation and other; relevant factors, may make a difference. Sometimes, one or other factor may come to be emphasised but essentially, it is the totality of the circumstances which would be taken into account. The fact that the share contribution of the Government is not very dominant may, alongwith other factors, become material, as happened in the case of-
(i) The Cochin Refineries Limited;2
(ii) Nellore Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited;3
(iii) The joint venture of Maruti Udyog Limited.4
At times, courts have tried to explain that the mere provision for guidance, advice and counsel by the Government does not necessarily amount to deep and pervasive State control. This is illustrated by decisions relating to-
(iv) Rashtriya Lalit Kala Kendra (National Academy of Arts);5
(v) Indian Institute of Bankers .6
1. Chander Mohan v. N.C.E.R.T., (1991) 3 SCJ 613.
2. K.M. Thomas v. Cochin Refineries Ltd., AIR 1982 Ker 248.
3. Baroda Cotton Co. v. Andhra Pradesh State Federation of Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., AIR 1991 AIR 320.
4. P.B. Ghayalod v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., C.W. No. 3182/90, Delhi High Court, decided on 11-9-1991.
5. Swapan K. Das v. Secretary, Lalit Kala Academy, AIR 1990 Notes of Cases 129 (Cal).
6. Ram Prasad v. Indian Institute of Bankers, AIR 1992 P&H 1 (FB).
Back
