REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JOGINDER SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KALYAN SINGH 1 SARDAR SINGH IN PETN NO 180 OF 61 2 LAL SINGH IN PETN NO 181 OF 61 AND 3 BHARAT RAJ SINGH IN PETN NO 205 OF 61 PETITIONERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS :STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR VS. GOVERNING BODY OF THE NALANDA COLLEGE BIHAR SHARIF [REFERRED TO]
LEKHRAJ S LALVANI VS. N M SHAH DEPUTY CUSTODIAN CUM MANAGING OFFICER BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
UMAKANT SARAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. SIPAHI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA GIAN PRAKASH NEW DELHI VS. K S JAGANNATHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S B VOHRA [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS. SUNDER LAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:

(2.) It is more than settled that the primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justiceiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established.

(3.) In Wharton's Law Lexicon, the word 'Right' means;

Click here to view full judgment.

JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address