Anti-profiteering interim relief balanced recovery claims, buyer protection, and conditional stay of penalty proceedings.

Interim relief in anti-profiteering litigation was considered on two fronts. Recovery of the balance profiteered amount was not stayed absolutely because the Court was concerned that withholding a determined refundable sum could prejudice flat buyers; instead, conditional protection was linked to proof that earlier benefits had been passed on and deposit of the balance within eight weeks. Proceedings for recovery of penalty were stayed, as the penalty provision was said to have been introduced later and similar matters had received interim protection elsewhere. The order therefore balanced equity between the petitioner and third-party beneficiaries while keeping the writ petition pending.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of the balance profiteered amount could be stayed at the interim stage. (ii) Whether proceedings for levy and recovery of penalty could be stayed pending consideration of the writ petition.

Issue (i): Stay was sought against recovery of the balance amount ordered to be refunded under the anti-profiteering framework. The Court noted the concern that an absolute stay could prejudice the flat buyers if the amount already determined to be refundable was not secured, particularly in the prevailing market conditions. The Court balanced the competing considerations and required the petitioner to furnish proof of having already passed on benefit of the earlier amount before obtaining protection against recovery of the balance amount.

Conclusion: Stay of recovery of the balance amount was declined in absolute terms, but conditional interim protection was granted upon proof of prior benefit being furnished and the balance amount being deposited within eight weeks.

Issue (ii): The penalty proceedings were challenged on the ground that the penalty provision was introduced later and was not in force for the relevant assessment period. The respondents fairly stated that similar matters had been stayed elsewhere, and the Court granted interim protection against coercive penalty action pending further hearing.

Conclusion: Stay of proceedings for recovery of penalty was granted.

Final Conclusion: The interim order granted limited protection to the petitioner on penalty proceedings and conditional protection on recovery of the profiteered amount, while preserving the position of the flat buyers and leaving the writ petition to be heard further.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim stay against recovery of an adjudicated amount may be refused where it would risk prejudice to third-party beneficiaries, while limited protection may still be granted on a conditional basis to balance equities.

---