Interim stay deposit conditions may be reduced when earlier proceedings have already deleted part of the disputed demand.

Interim stay conditions in writ appeals may be moderated where part of the disputed demand has already been deleted in earlier proceedings and the surviving liability is substantially lower. The Madras HC held that an existing deposit requirement was excessive in light of the reduced balance dispute, so the interim protection was continued on a lower deposit amount. Upon compliance, the bank attachment was to be lifted, with automatic vacation of the interim protection on default. The ruling reflects that interim burdens should remain proportionate to the live dispute and not impose an unduly harsh condition where part of the demand no longer survives.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition imposed while granting interim stay in the writ appeals required modification in view of the amount already deleted in the earlier round of litigation and the consequential balance dispute.

Analysis: The disputed demand included a component already set aside in the earlier round, and the remaining liability was considerably lower than the total demand. The condition of deposit fixed for continuing the interim protection was therefore found to be excessive in the circumstances. To balance equities, the interim order was modified by reducing the amount to be deposited and directing lifting of bank attachment upon compliance, with automatic vacation of the interim protection on default.

Conclusion: The condition for interim stay was modified in favour of the appellant by reducing the deposit amount and granting consequential relief against bank attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where part of the disputed demand has already been deleted in prior proceedings, the court may modify an interim deposit condition to make it commensurate with the surviving dispute and avoid an unduly harsh interim burden.

---