Alternative statutory remedy bars writ relief in a stale share-transfer dispute involving contested facts and private contractual arrangements.

A writ court will ordinarily not entertain a challenge seeking rectification of a company's register of members where the Companies Act, 1956 provides a specific statutory remedy for transfer-related grievances. The availability of that forum, especially after the petitioner had already invoked and withdrawn proceedings there, made writ jurisdiction inappropriate. Relief was also refused because the dispute arose from a private share-transfer arrangement, involved contested factual and contractual questions, and was brought after substantial delay and laches. In such circumstances, discretionary relief under Article 226 is not granted, and the challenge is treated as unsuitable for writ adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ appeal was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification of the register of members. (ii) Whether the challenge to the transfer of shares could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite delay, laches, and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the writ appeal was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification of the register of members.

Analysis: The prayer in substance sought rectification of the company's register and restoration of shares. Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 provided a specific statutory mechanism before the Company Law Board for transfer-related grievances and rectification of records. The petitioner had already invoked that forum and later withdrawn the proceedings. In these circumstances, writ jurisdiction was not the proper avenue for pursuing the same relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was upheld against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the transfer of shares could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite delay, laches, and the presence of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a private arrangement between two groups, involved interpretation of contractual terms, and depended on contested factual assertions. The challenge was raised after substantial delay, with the impugned transfer having occurred years earlier and no timely objection having been pursued. The Court treated the litigation as an abuse of process and held that discretionary relief under Article 226 could not be granted in such a setting.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by delay and laches and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction on disputed facts.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal failed because the appellant had an effective statutory remedy, approached the Court belatedly, and sought discretionary relief in a matter dominated by private contractual disputes and unresolved factual issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory remedy exists for rectification of share transfers, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised to decide a private dispute involving disputed facts, especially when the challenge is stale and the petitioner has already pursued and withdrawn proceedings before the statutory forum.

---