REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LINDSAY PETROLEUM COMPANY V. PROSPER ARMSTRONG HURDE ETC. [REFERRED TO]
ORIOL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. BOMBAY MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. ARUN KUMAR PATNATK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. PYARIMOHAN SAMANTARAY [REFERRED TO]
M R GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. DOLLY DAS [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. KURIEN E KALATHIL [REFERRED TO]
ABL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER CHAUDHARY VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
S S BALU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
YUNUS BABOOBHAI A HAMID PADVEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHUNVAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
ALASKA TECH VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
BUDH GRAMIN SANSTHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
KAKA ADVERTISING AGENCY VS. U P TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay Rs. 8,36,388/- in respect to work order which was issued in 2010 and work has been completed by petitioner in 2011.

(3.) Virtually this writ petition under Article 226 is nothing but a money suit for recovery of money, that too, in respect to certain dues for which remedy in common law has already become barred by limitation. So far as this writ petition is concerned, here also it suffers delay and laches and there is no explanation for laches of more than seven years. Therefore, we find that writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one reasons.

Click here to view full judgment.

HARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address