Stay of recovery pending appeal: immovable property security was treated as sufficient protection, and recovery was restrained.

Orders declining stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals and directing payment of the disputed amounts in instalments were quashed because the petitioner had already furnished immovable property security covering the entire disputed liability. The Court held that the revenue's interest was adequately protected and that refusal of stay, together with insistence on instalments, failed to apply the governing principles for grant of stay and amounted to an improper exercise of discretion. Recovery of the disputed amounts was therefore restrained pending disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders declining stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeals and directing payment of the disputed amounts in instalments were sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioner had already furnished immovable property security for the entirety of the disputed amounts, and the revenue's interest was found to be adequately protected. The refusal of stay and insistence on instalment payment were held to ignore the governing principles on grant of stay and to reflect an improper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The orders refusing stay were quashed, and recovery of the disputed amounts was restrained during the pendency of the appeals.

---