Statutory deeming fiction on settlement extends to connected co-noticee proceedings, causing abatement and no pre-deposit refund.

A statutory deeming fiction under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, that treats a declarant's appeal or reply as withdrawn on acceptance of the declaration, also extends to the connected matter of a co-noticee where the proceedings are deemed settled. The Tribunal held that this consequence must be carried through to its legal end, so the connected appeal stood abated and could not be treated as allowed. The appellant also could not claim refund of the pre-deposit on the footing that the appeal had been merits-allowed, because the relied-upon order only implemented the High Court's direction to pass formal orders and did not confer such relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after settlement by one noticee under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the connected appeal of the co-noticee stood abated or deemed withdrawn. (ii) Whether the settled position entitled the appellant to have the appeal treated as allowed and to obtain refund of the deposit made.

Issue (i): Whether, after settlement by one noticee under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, the connected appeal of the co-noticee stood abated or deemed withdrawn.

Analysis: The Scheme contained a deeming provision that an appeal or reply filed by a declarant would be treated as withdrawn once the declaration was accepted. That legal fiction was held to apply to the connected case of a co-noticee whose proceedings were deemed to have been settled on account of the settlement by the other noticee. The Tribunal held that the deeming consequence could not be truncated and had to be carried to its logical end.

Conclusion: The connected appeal was correctly treated as abated and could not be treated as allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the settled position entitled the appellant to have the appeal treated as allowed and to obtain refund of the deposit made.

Analysis: The earlier order merely gave effect to the High Court's direction that formal orders be passed in the pending appeal. Nothing in the relied-upon Supreme Court decision supported the proposition that, in such a situation, any pre-deposit had to be refunded. The order could not be read as granting a merits-based allowance of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to have the appeal treated as allowed or to claim refund on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the appeal had abated under the Scheme was upheld, and no basis was found to modify the order in the manner sought by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming fiction that treats proceedings as withdrawn or settled must be carried through to its necessary legal consequences, including abatement of the connected matter, unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.

---