https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291135 Under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent perversity, jurisdictional excess, gross injustice, or errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as appellate review. The competent authority's refusal to frame and decide a preliminary issue at the interlocutory stage was consistent with expeditious disposal under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court exceeded the proper scope of supervisory interference by re-examining maintainability and dismissing the application on that basis. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unjustified and that the order dismissing the application could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:09:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291135 Under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent perversity, jurisdictional excess, gross injustice, or errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as appellate review. The competent authority's refusal to frame and decide a preliminary issue at the interlocutory stage was consistent with expeditious disposal under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court exceeded the proper scope of supervisory interference by re-examining maintainability and dismissing the application on that basis. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unjustified and that the order dismissing the application could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291135