Read Time: 03 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently said if the High Court has found a matter to be worth admitting then there is no question of not considering the issue with regard to grant or refusal of interim relief, on the ground that there is an alternate remedy.

"When the High Court finds that there is merit in the matter and admits it, then it was also bound to consider as to whether the interim relief should have been granted or not", a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra has observed.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited, wherein at the outset the bench said, "We are surprised to read the impugned order".

The High Court order read thus: 

“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Arguable questions are made out.
2. Admit.
3. As the petitioner is having alternate remedy, we are refraining ourselves from granting interim relief."

The top court's division bench opined that non-granting of interim relief on the ground that there was an alternate remedy available was totally contradictory to the earlier part of the order admitting the matter.

"Non-consideration of the question of grant or refusal of interim relief, in our considered view, would be a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court...", the bench said while allowing the appeal.

High Court has been ordered to consider whether the interim relief needs to be granted or not.

Case Title: ASSETS CARE AND RECONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.