Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kr. Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co., Advs., with him for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:Shyam Divan, Bhaskar P. Gupta Sr. Advs., Ms. Shruti Chaudhary, Ms. Swati Sinha, Ms. Jayshree Singh, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Vishal Gupta, Vikram Bajaj, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Advs., with them for the Respondents.

What is the standard for granting interim injunctions in cases involving alleged arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution? What are the three basic considerations (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss) used to decide interim relief, and how should delay affect such relief? What factors justify granting interim relief at belated stages, particularly when constitutional rights are implicated?

Key Points: - Interim injunction should be granted after considering all pros and cons on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss (!) . - Delay in approaching the court is a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but exceptional cases exist where constitutional rights are at stake and there is risk of irretrievable development of suit property (!) . - The decision to grant interim relief depends on fairness, non-arbitrary action, and adherence to rule of law, including avoiding affections/favoritism and ensuring speaking, reasoned orders (Article 14 context) (!) (!) .

What is the standard for granting interim injunctions in cases involving alleged arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?

What are the three basic considerations (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss) used to decide interim relief, and how should delay affect such relief?

What factors justify granting interim relief at belated stages, particularly when constitutional rights are implicated?