https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313646 Judicial orders of civil courts exercising plenary jurisdiction are not ordinarily amenable to writ certiorari under Article 226; they are instead corrected through appeal, revision, or supervisory remedies. The Court distinguished civil court orders from those of tribunals and authorities, and rejected the contrary view as inconsistent with binding larger Bench authority. It also held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutionally distinct from Article 226: Article 227 is a separate supervisory power to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within jurisdiction, and is not a substitute for certiorari under Article 226. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:51:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313646 Judicial orders of civil courts exercising plenary jurisdiction are not ordinarily amenable to writ certiorari under Article 226; they are instead corrected through appeal, revision, or supervisory remedies. The Court distinguished civil court orders from those of tribunals and authorities, and rejected the contrary view as inconsistent with binding larger Bench authority. It also held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutionally distinct from Article 226: Article 227 is a separate supervisory power to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within jurisdiction, and is not a substitute for certiorari under Article 226. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313646