https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199446 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction remained available against interlocutory Tribunal orders despite a statutory appellate remedy, because the appeal provision was construed as applying to final orders and not so broadly as to defeat constitutional oversight. In the same recovery framework, the Tribunal was not required to treat jurisdictional objections as a mandatory preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC; that rule is discretionary, and deciding such objections with the remaining issues better served expeditious disposal and avoided piecemeal litigation. The challenge to the interlocutory order therefore failed, and the High Court declined interference. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199446 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction remained available against interlocutory Tribunal orders despite a statutory appellate remedy, because the appeal provision was construed as applying to final orders and not so broadly as to defeat constitutional oversight. In the same recovery framework, the Tribunal was not required to treat jurisdictional objections as a mandatory preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC; that rule is discretionary, and deciding such objections with the remaining issues better served expeditious disposal and avoided piecemeal litigation. The challenge to the interlocutory order therefore failed, and the High Court declined interference. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 30 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199446