Alternative remedies for broker-share disputes precluded writ jurisdiction where arbitration and exchange grievance mechanisms remained uninvoked.

Writ jurisdiction was unavailable for a private dispute over alleged disappearance or misappropriation of shares where the contractual framework required resolution under stock-exchange rules through Mumbai arbitration and grievance-redressal mechanisms. The allegations required adjudication of contested facts concerning shareholding and Demat transactions, and the petitioner had not used the prescribed remedies. Copying a complaint to the securities regulator did not convert the contractual dispute into one suitable for writ review. The note states that the writ petition was not maintainable, without addressing the merits of the underlying claims.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition concerning alleged disappearance or misappropriation of shares by a private stock broker was maintainable despite contractual arbitration and available exchange grievance-redressal remedies.

Analysis: The dispute arose from the contractual relationship between the petitioner and the stock broker and involved allegations requiring determination of contested facts concerning the shareholding and Demat transactions. The contract note subjected disputes to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited, Mumbai jurisdiction and arbitration at Mumbai. The petitioner had not invoked arbitration or the available grievance-redressal mechanisms. Marking a complaint email to the securities regulator did not transform the private contractual dispute into a matter warranting writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because efficacious alternative remedies were available before the competent forum; no opinion was expressed on the merits of the underlying dispute.

---