https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304291 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was held unavailable where concurrent orders refusing a request to send a cheque for handwriting examination were neither perverse nor arbitrary. The court noted that the first application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act was confined to the cheque contents and did not seek an opinion on the signature, while the later signature-based request was inconsistent with that earlier stand. As the matter had already reached the arguments stage and the applications appeared designed to delay proceedings, interference was declined. The petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Sep 2022 19:34:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304291 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was held unavailable where concurrent orders refusing a request to send a cheque for handwriting examination were neither perverse nor arbitrary. The court noted that the first application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act was confined to the cheque contents and did not seek an opinion on the signature, while the later signature-based request was inconsistent with that earlier stand. As the matter had already reached the arguments stage and the applications appeared designed to delay proceedings, interference was declined. The petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to decide the complaint expeditiously on its own merits and in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304291