Published on: October 23, 2023 at 17:04 IST
The Supreme Court has raised concerns about an order issued by the Bombay High Court. The High Court, in a peculiar move, admitted a writ petition and subsequently declined to entertain the request for interim relief, citing the availability of an alternative legal recourse.
Expressing its astonishment over this course of action, the Supreme Court has now directed the matter back to the Bombay High Court. The High Court is asked for reassessing whether interim relief should indeed be granted.
A bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra firmly asserted that the High Court, in its earlier decision, had failed to fully exercise its legal authority.
This failure was particularly evident in its refusal to deliberate on the matter of granting or denying interim relief after having admitted the case.
The Supreme Court emphasized, “If the High Court has determined the petition’s merit to be substantial enough for admission, there should be no reason to dismiss the consideration of granting or refusing interim relief on the premise of the existence of an alternative remedy.”
In the Supreme Court’s perspective, the refusal to grant interim relief on the basis of an alternative legal avenue contradicts the initial decision by the High Court to accept the case.
Case Title: Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.