Advocates:
HARISH N.SLAVE, Indu Malhotra, K.J.JOHN, MANISH PARIKH, Pratap venugopal

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The court heard arguments from Shri Harish Salve, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Indu Malhotra, counsel for the respondent, who was asked to take notice (!) .

2. The petitioner raised concerns regarding inconsistency in the conditions for granting stay orders in different benches of the High Court. Specifically, a division bench had previously ordered an unconditional stay, whereas in the present case, the bench imposed a condition requiring payment of 25% of the demand (!) .

3. The court noted that while principles of binding precedents do not strictly apply to interlocutory orders, there is a need for consistency, uniformity, and predictability in judicial approach to similar matters. This is important to prevent grievances arising from discriminatory treatment and to ensure fairness in judicial discretion (!) .

4. The court set aside the order under appeal and granted an interim stay for a period of eight weeks. It was indicated that the final hearing was scheduled for a later date, and if the matter was not disposed of within the stipulated period, the petitioners could seek further stay. The Chief Justice of the High Court was instructed to list all similar and connected matters before a specific bench to ensure uniformity (!) .

5. The special leave petitions were finally disposed of in accordance with the court's directions (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this document.