Corporate fraud and share-transfer disputes require company-law remedies where factual investigation and no distinct public law element arise.

Alleged fraudulent removal from directorship, share transfers, misuse of digital signatures and internal management disputes must be pursued through the specialised company-law mechanism under the Companies Act, 2013. Investigation into alleged fraud or misconduct in company affairs is available through the National Company Law Tribunal, while claimed industrial-policy and lease-condition breaches depend on resolution of the underlying corporate dispute. Disputed questions concerning consent, transfer documents and record authenticity require evidence and investigation unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. Alleged official inaction does not create a public law element in an essentially private corporate dispute, leaving the petitioner to seek relief before competent company-law authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking investigation into alleged fraudulent transfer of shares, removal from directorship and breach of industrial-policy lease conditions was maintainable despite remedies under company law.

Analysis: The substance of the grievance concerned alleged fraudulent removal from directorship, transfer of shareholding, misuse of digital signatures, and internal management of a private company. Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a specialised statutory mechanism through the National Company Law Tribunal for investigation into company affairs where fraud, misconduct or lack of material information is alleged. The asserted industrial-policy and lease-condition violations were dependent upon resolution of the underlying corporate dispute. The claims also involved disputed factual questions concerning consent, share transfer documentation and authenticity of records, requiring evidence and investigation unsuitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. In the absence of a distinct public law element, alleged inaction by official respondents did not transform the private corporate dispute into a writ matter.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because an equally efficacious statutory remedy was available under the Companies Act, 2013; the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies before the competent company-law authorities.

---