Alternative statutory remedy before SAT became available after constitution of the Tribunal, so writ appeals were disposed of.

The Madras High Court noted that the writ petitions had been dismissed because an alternative remedy was available, but the later constitution of the Securities Appellate Tribunal with a Judicial Member removed that impediment. The appellants were therefore permitted to pursue the statutory appeal before the Tribunal instead of maintaining the writ appeals. The Court also directed the Tribunal not to insist on limitation if the appeals were filed within the stipulated period, and it continued interim protection until the Tribunal considered the appeals and any interlocutory applications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appeals should be entertained when an effective appellate remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal became available upon constitution of the Tribunal with a Judicial Member.

Analysis: The writ petitions had been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. The subsequent constitution of the Securities Appellate Tribunal removed the impediment that had existed when the appeals were filed, and the appellants were permitted to pursue the statutory appeal remedy before that Tribunal. The Tribunal was also directed not to insist upon limitation if the appeals were filed within the stipulated period, and the interim protection granted by the Court was continued until the Tribunal considered the appeals and any interlocutory applications.

Conclusion: The writ appeals were disposed of by directing the appellants to avail the appellate remedy before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

---