https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283979 Article 136 interference with an interim deposit order is reserved for cases of substantial injustice or compelling need, and is not justified merely because a legal flaw may be arguable. The Court noted that the rent arrears claim was not seriously disputed, the order did not finally determine the suit, and no liberty to withdraw the deposit had been granted. On those facts, full interference was declined, but the Court exercised equitable discretion to mould relief by reducing the deposit amount to suit the ends of justice. en-us Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:18:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283979 Article 136 interference with an interim deposit order is reserved for cases of substantial injustice or compelling need, and is not justified merely because a legal flaw may be arguable. The Court noted that the rent arrears claim was not seriously disputed, the order did not finally determine the suit, and no liberty to withdraw the deposit had been granted. On those facts, full interference was declined, but the Court exercised equitable discretion to mould relief by reducing the deposit amount to suit the ends of justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283979