https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217743 Larger Bench precedent governs when Supreme Court decisions appear to conflict on the scope of Articles 226 and 227, and later smaller-Bench reasoning cannot displace binding certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction rulings. The text also states that maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal depends on the true nature of the controversy, pleadings and reliefs, not on the petition's label alone. Where the facts justify invocation of Article 226, an appeal is not barred merely because the Single Judge referred to Article 227. A writ petition against a purely private respondent remains unavailable unless statutory infraction or collusion with a statutory authority is shown. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217743 Larger Bench precedent governs when Supreme Court decisions appear to conflict on the scope of Articles 226 and 227, and later smaller-Bench reasoning cannot displace binding certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction rulings. The text also states that maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal depends on the true nature of the controversy, pleadings and reliefs, not on the petition's label alone. Where the facts justify invocation of Article 226, an appeal is not barred merely because the Single Judge referred to Article 227. A writ petition against a purely private respondent remains unavailable unless statutory infraction or collusion with a statutory authority is shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217743