https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167413 SC held that while interlocutory orders are not strictly governed by the doctrine of binding precedent, judicial discretion in such matters must reflect consistency, uniformity and predictability. Different Benches of the HC imposing widely divergent conditions for grant of stay, including a direction to deposit 25% of the demand in the present case, was found to create scope for discriminatory treatment among similarly situated litigants. Emphasizing the need for similar treatment absent material factual distinctions, SC set aside the impugned HC order imposing the 25% pre-deposit condition. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167413 SC held that while interlocutory orders are not strictly governed by the doctrine of binding precedent, judicial discretion in such matters must reflect consistency, uniformity and predictability. Different Benches of the HC imposing widely divergent conditions for grant of stay, including a direction to deposit 25% of the demand in the present case, was found to create scope for discriminatory treatment among similarly situated litigants. Emphasizing the need for similar treatment absent material factual distinctions, SC set aside the impugned HC order imposing the 25% pre-deposit condition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167413