https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795739 Writ jurisdiction was unavailable for a private dispute between an investor and a stock broker concerning alleged disappearance or misappropriation of shares. The dispute arose from their contractual relationship and required determination of contested facts on shareholding and Demat transactions. Contractual terms required resolution under stock-exchange rules, including Mumbai-based arbitration, while exchange grievance-redressal mechanisms had not been invoked. Copying a complaint to the securities regulator did not convert the contractual dispute into a writ matter. Efficacious alternative remedies before the competent forum therefore precluded writ relief, without any determination of the underlying merits. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:27:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795739 Writ jurisdiction was unavailable for a private dispute between an investor and a stock broker concerning alleged disappearance or misappropriation of shares. The dispute arose from their contractual relationship and required determination of contested facts on shareholding and Demat transactions. Contractual terms required resolution under stock-exchange rules, including Mumbai-based arbitration, while exchange grievance-redressal mechanisms had not been invoked. Copying a complaint to the securities regulator did not convert the contractual dispute into a writ matter. Efficacious alternative remedies before the competent forum therefore precluded writ relief, without any determination of the underlying merits. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795739