In a recent turn of events, the Supreme Court has voiced its concerns and expressed surprise over a decision made by the Bombay High Court. The bone of contention was the High Court’s choice to admit a particular matter but subsequently decline to provide interim relief, citing the availability of an alternate remedy.
The apex court’s observations came to light during the hearing of an appeal lodged by Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited. This company had taken issue with a January 2022 order from the Bombay High Court. The High Court’s order had explicitly stated,
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Arguable questions are made out. Admit. As the petitioner is having an alternate remedy, we are refraining ourselves from granting interim relief.”
Delving deeper into the matter, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the inherent responsibilities of a High Court when admitting a case. They pointed out that if a High Court deems a matter worthy of admission, it is simultaneously bound to evaluate the necessity and appropriateness of granting interim relief. The Supreme Court remarked,
“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.”
They further elaborated that overlooking the potential grant or refusal of interim relief essentially amounts to a
“failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court.”
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court took decisive action. It nullified the Bombay High Court’s contentious order and sent the matter back for reconsideration. The apex court explicitly directed the High Court to re-evaluate the case and determine whether interim relief should indeed be granted.
The legal representation for the petitioner-firm, Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited, comprised a team of advocates: Amarjit Singh Bedi, RP Agrawal, Manisha Agrawal, Riya Seth, and Varun Chandiok. Representing the Maharashtra government were advocates Shrirang B Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sourav Singh, and Aditya Krishna.
This unfolding legal drama underscores the intricate nuances of the judicial process and highlights the paramount importance of thorough judicial review. It serves as a reminder that courts must exercise their jurisdiction with utmost care, especially when it pertains to matters of interim relief.
