Binding High Court precedent and prima facie unsustainable demand justified unconditional stay of pre-deposit and recovery.

Existing Bombay High Court judgments were treated as binding because no stay by the High Court or Supreme Court was shown, and a mere statement that an appeal had been filed did not dilute their effect. On that basis, the demand was regarded as prima facie unsustainable, and the applicants were granted an unconditional stay of pre-deposit and recovery. The note therefore records that binding precedent, absent any stay, can justify complete interim protection where the underlying demand appears prima facie improper.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to an unconditional stay of pre-deposit and recovery in view of the existing Bombay High Court judgments and the prima facie unsustainability of the demand.

Analysis: The demand was found prima facie improper, and the High Court judgments relied upon were treated as binding since there was no shown stay by the High Court or the Supreme Court. A mere assertion that an appeal had been filed did not displace their binding force.

Outcome: Unconditional stay of pre-deposit and recovery granted.

---