https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283201 Article 227 was treated as a broad supervisory power enabling the High Court to control judicial and administrative functioning of courts and tribunals within its territory, and a statutory finality clause could not exclude review for jurisdictional error, patent mistake, abuse of jurisdiction, or miscarriage of justice. In the Panchayati Adalat context, unauthorised intervention by the Sarpanch, irregular constitution of the bench, and non-compliance with mandatory procedure, including failure to explain the charge, were treated as jurisdictional defects that invalidated the proceedings. On the offence issue, affray required a bilateral public fight, and one-sided aggression without mutual combat was insufficient. en-us Wed, 16 Jan 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:26:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283201 Article 227 was treated as a broad supervisory power enabling the High Court to control judicial and administrative functioning of courts and tribunals within its territory, and a statutory finality clause could not exclude review for jurisdictional error, patent mistake, abuse of jurisdiction, or miscarriage of justice. In the Panchayati Adalat context, unauthorised intervention by the Sarpanch, irregular constitution of the bench, and non-compliance with mandatory procedure, including failure to explain the charge, were treated as jurisdictional defects that invalidated the proceedings. On the offence issue, affray required a bilateral public fight, and one-sided aggression without mutual combat was insufficient. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Jan 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283201