- Case
- BANK OF INDIA v. MUTHYALA SAIBABA SURYANARAYANA MURTHY (Supreme Court of India, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 226 of the Constitution, noting that High Courts should not aid those who are tardy, indolent, or lethargic when exercising writ powers. The court emphasizes that this principle must be borne in mind when exercising high prerogative writ jurisdiction. "The Division Bench, in course of its interference with the order dismissing the writ petition, failed to realise that in exercise of writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high courts of the country do not come to the aid of the tardy, the indolent, and the lethargic."
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle that a mandamus cannot be sought without a legal right. It states that a person is aggrieved only when denied a legal right by someone with a legal duty. The court emphasizes that sympathy, grace, charity, or compassion should not influence the exercise of discretion, especially in cases lacking acceptable justification for delayed action. The judgment also highlights the binding nature of settlements and the potential chaos that could arise from accepting belated options. "It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right."
