Writ intervention refused in insider-trading dispute where statutory investigation was already underway and factual issues were contested.

A writ petition challenging alleged insider trading was found unsuitable for interim continuation because the dispute turned on contested facts and the securities regulator had already initiated investigation under the statutory framework. The law provided a complete mechanism for enquiry and action by the competent authority, making writ intervention inappropriate where an alternative and efficacious remedy existed. The interim restraint was also capable of affecting separate amalgamation proceedings governed by company law. The interim status quo order was therefore vacated, leaving the regulator to complete the insider-trading investigation in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim status quo order should be continued in a writ petition alleging insider trading, when the securities regulator had already initiated investigation and the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The allegations related to insider trading under the securities law regime and turned on disputed questions of fact. The statutory framework vested the Board with power to investigate violations, and the Regulations also provided a procedure for enquiry and action. The proposed amalgamation proceedings were governed separately by the Companies Act and the relevant company-court process. In these circumstances, the writ remedy was held to be inappropriate when an alternative and efficacious statutory mechanism was available and the competent authority was already seized of the matter. The existing interim order was also found capable of interfering with the separate amalgamation process.

Conclusion: The interim order was vacated and the writ petition did not warrant continuation of the requested restraint.

Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by declining to continue interim protection, leaving the statutory regulator to complete the insider-trading investigation in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specialised statute provides a complete mechanism for investigation into alleged securities-law violations, and the competent regulator has already commenced action, writ intervention is not appropriate to stall related proceedings on disputed factual allegations.

---