https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174252 SC allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment and order. The Court held the insurer's petition under Article 227 was misconceived because a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 173 existed; where an appeal is provided, the High Court may not substitute Article 227/226 for that appellate route. Article 227 is limited to supervisory review of jurisdictional excesses, not reappraisal of evidence or correction of errors of law. Since an appeal lay to the High Court, the petition should not have been entertained. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174252 SC allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment and order. The Court held the insurer's petition under Article 227 was misconceived because a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 173 existed; where an appeal is provided, the High Court may not substitute Article 227/226 for that appellate route. Article 227 is limited to supervisory review of jurisdictional excesses, not reappraisal of evidence or correction of errors of law. Since an appeal lay to the High Court, the petition should not have been entertained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174252