Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1086
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprises Limited – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). @ SLP(C) No.9913 of 2022
Decided On : 16-10-2023
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, AOR Mr. R P Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Manisha Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Riya Seth, Adv. Mr. Varun Chandiok, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Failure to consider granting or refusing interim relief after admitting a matter based on its merit constitutes a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Headnote:INTERIM RELIEF - Judicial Review of High Court Order - Not specified The court discussed the High Court's order, which refrained from granting interim relief due to the availability of an alternate remedy. The court found this reasoning contradictory as the High Court had already admitted the matter based on its merit. The court held that non-consideration of granting or refusing interim relief would be a failure to exercise jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the High Court's order refraining from granting interim relief despite admitting the matter based on its merit.Finding of the Court:
The court found the High Court's reasoning contradictory and held that non-consideration of granting or refusing interim relief would be a failure to exercise jurisdiction.Issues:
Judicial review of High Court's order, consideration of interim relief.Ratio Decidendi:
Non-consideration of granting or refusing interim relief would be a failure to exercise jurisdiction.Final Decision:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.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.
