Overlapping remedies and alternative recourse justified declining appellate interference in the company law dispute.

Reliefs sought in a writ petition and a company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act were substantially overlapping, with both proceedings centring on increase in authorised share capital and related allegations of money laundering and RBI violation. Because an alternative remedy was available, including recourse before the Director under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, interference with the Single Judge's order was not warranted. The appeal was therefore not entertained and the request for interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the order declining interference should be entertained when the reliefs sought in the writ petition substantially overlapped with those in the company petition and an alternative remedy was available.

Analysis: The reliefs sought in the writ petition were compared with the reliefs in the company petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The principal grievance in both proceedings related to the increase in authorised share capital and allied allegations of money laundering and violation of RBI regulations. As the reliefs were substantially overlapping, and the appellant had other remedies available, including placing the matter before the Director under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, interference with the order of the Single Judge was not warranted.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained and the request to interfere was declined, in favour of the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the reliefs in two proceedings substantially overlap and an alternative remedy is available, appellate interference may be declined.

---