Non-compliance with stay order conditions defeats restoration where delayed deposit and unproved financial hardship are not accepted.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order was refused where the appellant did not deposit the amount within the time granted. The Tribunal rejected the explanation of financial difficulty because that plea had already been found unsubstantiated when stay was allowed. It also held that later deposit of the amount, without seeking timely modification of the stay conditions, could not cure the default or justify restoration. The appeal therefore remained dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to restoration of the appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed because the amount directed under the stay order was not deposited within the time granted. The explanation of financial difficulty was not accepted, particularly as that plea had already been found unsubstantiated when stay was granted. The Tribunal also noted that the amount was deposited much later without seeking timely modification of the stay conditions, and held that such belated compliance could not justify restoration.

Conclusion: Restoration of the appeal was declined.

---