Supreme Court surprised after Bombay High Court admits petition but declines to hear prayer for interim relief

The Supreme Court recently expressed its surprise to find that the Bombay High Court had admitted a matter for hearing, only for it to refuse any interim relief on grounds that an alternate remedy was available [Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited vs State of Maharashtra and ors].A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra opined that if the High Court had found that the matter was worth admitting, it ought to have also looked into whether interim relief should be granted. ."We are surprised to read the impugned order. 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 ...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," the apex court stated..The matter was, therefore, sent back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the question of interim relief..The top court was hearing an appeal filed by Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited against a January 2022 Bombay High Court ruling. The relevant part of the High Court's order said:“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Arguable questions are made out. Admit. As the petitioner is having alternate remedy, we are refraining ourselves from granting interim relief.”.The Supreme Court set aside the order and said that when a High Court admits a matter, it is bound to consider whether interim relief can be granted. "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," the Supreme Court pointed out in its October 16 order. .The appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded back to the High Court. .Advocates Amarjit Singh Bedi, RP Agrawal, Manisha Agrawal, Riya Seth, and Varun Chandiok represented the petitioner-firm, Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited. Advocates Shrirang B Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sourav Singh, and Aditya Krishna represented the Maharashtra government..[Read order]