https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105692 A civil revision petition under Article 227 was held not maintainable where the challenged Company Law Board order was appealable under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The expression "the High Court" in section 10F was construed as the High Court having jurisdiction over the place where the company's registered office is situated; as the registered office was in Bangalore, the proper appellate forum was the Karnataka High Court and not the Madras High Court. The Court further held that, even if supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could exist concurrently, judicial discipline required it not to be exercised where the matter lay before the appropriate High Court, so as to avoid conflicting decisions. en-us Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:36:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105692 A civil revision petition under Article 227 was held not maintainable where the challenged Company Law Board order was appealable under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. The expression "the High Court" in section 10F was construed as the High Court having jurisdiction over the place where the company's registered office is situated; as the registered office was in Bangalore, the proper appellate forum was the Karnataka High Court and not the Madras High Court. The Court further held that, even if supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 could exist concurrently, judicial discipline required it not to be exercised where the matter lay before the appropriate High Court, so as to avoid conflicting decisions. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105692