Case Law Details
Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprises Limited Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction: The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment that emphasizes the need for High Courts to consider interim relief prayers without refusal based on the availability of an alternative remedy. The case of Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprises Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. revolves around a High Court order that raised concerns due to its contradictory nature. This article provides an analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The case at hand involves an appeal against a High Court order dated 25.01.2022. The High Court’s order was peculiar, as it admitted the case but refrained from granting interim relief, citing the presence of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court was approached to address this contradictory stance.
2. High Court’s Order: The High Court’s order expressed that arguable questions were presented in the case, leading to its admission. However, it proceeded to deny interim relief, stating that the petitioner had an alternate remedy.
3. Supreme Court’s Response: The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the High Court’s order, found it perplexing. It pointed out that if the High Court deemed the case worthy of admission, then the question of considering interim relief should have been addressed. The denial of interim relief solely based on the existence of an alternative remedy conflicted with the earlier part of the order.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The Supreme Court emphasized that when the High Court admits a matter, it must also contemplate whether interim relief is warranted or not. Failure to consider this aspect would indicate a lapse in the exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction.
5. Setting Aside the Impugned Order: To rectify the anomaly in the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court decided to set it aside. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration. The High Court is expected to evaluate whether interim relief is justifiable.
6. Implications: The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts should thoroughly examine cases brought before them. When a case is admitted, it implies the recognition of its merit. Consequently, the issue of interim relief cannot be dismissed solely based on the availability of alternative remedies. This ruling underscores the need for a comprehensive and consistent approach in the exercise of judicial discretion.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprises Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. serves as a reminder of the importance of judicial consistency. High Courts must not deny interim relief without a proper evaluation, even if alternative remedies exist. This judgment clarifies the procedure for addressing interim relief requests in the Indian legal system.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court dated 25.01.2022, which reads 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.”
3. We are surprised to read the impugned order.
4. If the High Court has found that the matter was worth admitting then there was no question of non-considering the issue with regard to grant or refusal of interim relief, on the ground that there is an alternate remedy.
5. 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.
6. Non-granting of interim relief on the ground that there is an alternate remedy available is totally contradictory to the earlier part of the order admitting the matter.
7. 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.
8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court. The High Court would consider whether the interim relief needs to be granted or not.
9. The appeal is allowed, to the extent indicated above.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
