Court adjusts stay order terms from 40% to 30% deposit, sets deadlines. Compliance crucial for retaining stay.

The High Court modified the stay order condition imposed by the 1st respondent from a 40% deposit requirement to 30%, with specific deadlines for the two instalments. The petitioner was permitted to retain the stay order on the condition of meeting the revised deposit terms, warning that failure to comply would result in automatic vacation of the stay without court intervention. The Court emphasized the adjustment was made in the interest of justice, finding the initial condition lacking a special reason.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to stay order - Imposition of conditions - Compliance with deposit requirement - Modification of conditions

In this case, the petitioner challenged the stay order granted by the 1st respondent, which required a deposit of 40% of the demand in two equal instalments. The petitioner argued that this condition was arbitrary and illegal, proposing to provide immovable property security instead. The respondent, on the other hand, defended the stay order, stating that the 40% deposit condition was reasonable and that movable property security was not acceptable. The High Court noted the arguments and found that while it generally does not interfere with the discretion of authorities, in this case, the 40% deposit condition lacked a special reason. Therefore, the Court modified the condition to 30%, with the first instalment due by a specified date and the second instalment due a month later. The petitioner was allowed to enjoy the stay order subject to compliance, with a warning that default would lead to automatic vacation of the stay without court intervention. The Court emphasized that this modification was made to meet the ends of justice in the circumstances of the case.

---