https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106734 Judicial review under Article 226 over BIFR and AAIFR orders is limited to certiorari grounds, so the High Court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the statutory authorities. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or an error apparent on the face of the record. On the facts noted, the prior court arrangement did not curtail BIFR's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the record did not show that the company had ceased to be sick. The authorities' directions for a fresh rehabilitation scheme and change in management were therefore left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:26:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106734 Judicial review under Article 226 over BIFR and AAIFR orders is limited to certiorari grounds, so the High Court will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the statutory authorities. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or an error apparent on the face of the record. On the facts noted, the prior court arrangement did not curtail BIFR's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and the record did not show that the company had ceased to be sick. The authorities' directions for a fresh rehabilitation scheme and change in management were therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106734