Alternate remedies as a bar to interim relief - Courts have held that the availability of an alternate remedy does not automatically bar interim relief or judicial intervention, especially if the matter is of significant importance or involves fundamental rights. For instance, the Supreme Court and High Courts have emphasized that the mere existence of an alternate remedy cannot be a blanket ground to deny interim relief if the case warrants urgent consideration. ["Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprises Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court"]
Principle of alternate remedies in civil suits under Section 92 CPC - Section 92 of the CPC requires prior leave of the court before instituting a suit to protect public trusts or rights. The grant of such leave is a procedural necessity; without it, the suit remains legally inert. Courts have reiterated that no interlocutory orders, including notices, can be passed before leave is granted, and the suit cannot be properly instituted without this permission. ["S. Panchalingu, S/o. Late Singrigowda vs People’s Education Trust (R), Represented By Its Secretary S.L. Shivaprasad - Karnataka"], ["T. K. Unnikrishna Pilla S/o Kumaran Nair VS Ajithkumar S/o Ramachandran - Kerala"], ["Madha Trust, Represented by its Founder/Managing Trustee, Rev. Fr. A. Savarimuthu, Kumbakonam VS D. Daniel Amaladoss - Madras"]
Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedies - Courts recognize exceptions where the case involves fundamental rights, public interest, or vexatious conduct. In such cases, courts may entertain petitions or grant relief despite the existence of an alternate remedy. For example, in cases involving public trust protection or breach of trust allegations, courts are more inclined to intervene without insisting on the exhaustion of statutory remedies. ["JOSCO FASHION JEWELLERS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED v/s HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED - Karnataka"], ["Arulmurugan vs Kalaimagal Educational Trust Represented by its Managing Trustee - Madras"]
Legal position on bypassing statutory remedies - While the rule of alternate remedies generally restricts courts from exercising jurisdiction, exceptions exist when the remedy is ineffective, lengthy, or involves constitutional rights. Courts have cautioned against bypassing statutory procedures unless compelling reasons, such as urgency or violation of fundamental rights, justify intervention. ["JOSCO FASHION JEWELLERS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED v/s HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED - Karnataka"]
Implication for granting leave under Section 92 - The grant of leave under Section 92 is a mandatory procedural step before filing a suit related to public trusts. Failure to obtain or correctly obtain this leave renders the suit improperly instituted, and courts may dismiss applications or suits on this ground. The process ensures that only valid and properly sanctioned suits proceed. ["T. K. Unnikrishna Pilla S/o Kumaran Nair VS Ajithkumar S/o Ramachandran - Kerala"], ["Madha Trust, Represented by its Founder/Managing Trustee, Rev. Fr. A. Savarimuthu, Kumbakonam VS D. Daniel Amaladoss - Madras"]
Analysis and Conclusion:While the principle of alternate remedies is a fundamental doctrine to prevent unnecessary judicial interference and overburdening courts, it is not an absolute bar. Courts may exercise discretion to entertain petitions or grant interim relief in exceptional circumstances, especially where fundamental rights or public interest are involved. In the context of suits under Section 92 CPC, obtaining proper leave is a procedural requirement, and non-compliance can invalidate the suit. However, courts recognize that in certain urgent or constitutional matters, bypassing or bypassing statutory remedies may be justified, provided the circumstances warrant such intervention.
