https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111806 Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was treated as available against an order of the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, because the statute did not clearly exclude such review. The order issuing process under Section 319 CrPC was treated as not being an appealable final order under Section 10 of the Special Court Act, as it did not itself finally determine the criminal proceedings. On Section 319, the document states that the power is extraordinary and must rest on recorded evidence creating reasonable satisfaction; the impugned order was said to fall short and was set aside for fresh consideration by the Special Judge. en-us Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:48:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111806 Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was treated as available against an order of the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, because the statute did not clearly exclude such review. The order issuing process under Section 319 CrPC was treated as not being an appealable final order under Section 10 of the Special Court Act, as it did not itself finally determine the criminal proceedings. On Section 319, the document states that the power is extraordinary and must rest on recorded evidence creating reasonable satisfaction; the impugned order was said to fall short and was set aside for fresh consideration by the Special Judge. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111806