Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Kanchan Chakraborty vs. Gandhi Centenary B.T. College:

Case Details and Parties * The case is Kanchan Chakraborty vs. Gandhi Centenary B.T. College, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on 13-08-2010 (!) (!) . * The petitioner is Tahamina Khatun, and the respondent is Gandhi Centenary B.T. College (!) . * The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (!) .

Facts of the Case * The petitioner filed a suit in 1993 against the College for not admitting her in the B. Ed. Course for the 1993-94 academic session despite her name appearing on the merit list (!) . * Although the High Court later directed the College to admit the petitioner for the 2002-2003 session, the petitioner was denied service for the 1993 session (!) (!) . * The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/- for lost academic years (!) . * The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the matter was sub-judice in the Civil Court (!) . * The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and the matter was sub-judice (!) .

Issues Raised * Whether the application under Article 227 is maintainable when an alternative remedy (appeal to the National Commission) is available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Judgement Subject]. * Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal under Article 227 [Judgement Subject]. * Whether the High Court's power under Article 227 can be invoked to correct errors of law or fact [Judgement Subject].

Legal Principles and Arguments * The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, provides additional remedies and is not in derogation of other laws [Judgement Subject] (!) . * An application under Article 227 is maintainable even if an alternative remedy exists, provided the case falls under "exceptional cases" involving a gross jurisdictional error [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be sparingly exercised to ensure subordinate courts function within their authority [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The High Court will not interfere with findings of fact or correct errors of law/fact under Article 227, except to prevent grave injustice or flagrant abuse of justice [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The petitioner argued that since no appeal lay against the State Commission's order in the National Commission, Article 227 was the appropriate remedy (!) (!) . * The respondent argued that since an alternative remedy was available under the Act, the High Court should not entertain the Article 227 application (!) .

Court's Findings and Decision * The High Court held that the State Commission committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The Court found the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation because the cause of action arose in 1993, not when the petitioner was eventually admitted in 2002 (!) . * The petitioner failed to establish an "exceptional case" necessitating High Court intervention [Judgement Subject] (!) . * The revision application was dismissed, and the petitioner's petition was not entertained [Judgement Subject] (!) .

Procedural History * The challenge was to the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (!) . * The petitioner had exhausted the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act by filing an appeal in the State Commission before approaching the High Court (!) (!) . * No order as to costs was passed, and any interim stay order was vacated (!) (!) .