Pre-deposit hardship and restoration of dismissed appeals depend on proof of undue hardship and sufficient cause for default.

Waiver or modification of a pre-deposit order was refused because undue hardship was not proved with cogent material; the applicant's asserted financial distress was unsupported by balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, or bank statements, so the pre-deposit condition was maintained and further time was granted for compliance. Appeals dismissed for non-compliance were restored only where the default was linked to the company's compliance and further time had been granted to the company; the Directors/Ex-Directors obtained restoration, while the remaining applicants failed to show sufficient cause for non-compliance and their restoration requests were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the stay order directing pre-deposit required modification or waiver on the ground of financial hardship. (ii) Whether the appeals dismissed for non-compliance were liable to be restored, including the appeals of the Directors/Ex-Directors and the remaining applicants.

Issue (i): Whether the stay order directing pre-deposit required modification or waiver on the ground of financial hardship.

Analysis: The requested relief rested on alleged hardship arising from the applicant's claimed right over factory premises and the asserted inability to arrange funds. The claim over the property had already been rejected in detailed proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the applicant produced no independent material such as balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, or bank statements to establish present financial distress. The requirement of pre-deposit had earlier been fixed after considering the facts, and the governing principle is that waiver can be granted only on proof of undue hardship while also safeguarding the interests of revenue.

Conclusion: The request for modification or waiver was rejected, and the pre-deposit condition was maintained with additional time granted for compliance.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals dismissed for non-compliance were liable to be restored, including the appeals of the Directors/Ex-Directors and the remaining applicants.

Analysis: The Directors/Ex-Directors had been relieved of immediate pre-deposit only because their liability was linked to the company's compliance with the principal pre-deposit direction. Since further time was granted to the company, their appeals could not remain dismissed. The remaining applicants, however, had been directed to deposit only 25% of relatively small penalties, had not pleaded any financial hardship, and failed to show sufficient cause for non-compliance. Their explanations were therefore insufficient to justify restoration.

Conclusion: The appeals of the Directors/Ex-Directors were restored, while the restoration applications of the remaining applicants were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application seeking modification of the stay order failed, the company was granted further time to comply with the pre-deposit direction, the Directors/Ex-Directors obtained restoration of their appeals, and the remaining restoration requests were refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Waiver or modification of a pre-deposit order requires proof of undue hardship through cogent material, and restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance depends on a sufficient cause for default.

---