Litigants' Appeals Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order

The litigants in the case failed to comply with a pre-deposit order despite warnings from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of their appeals by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the conditional nature of the right of appeal and the necessity to fulfill pre-deposit conditions. The litigants' attempts to challenge the order were unsuccessful, resulting in the dismissal of all appeals following the precedent set by the Apex Court. The Tribunal stated its commitment to following any directions from the Apex Court regarding the review application status.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order by litigants.
2. Consideration of waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Review application status before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Applicability of the right of appeal.
5. Dismissal of appeals based on non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions.
6. Reference to the case of Vijay D. Meheta by the Apex Court.
7. Guidance by the Apex Court's order or direction.

Compliance with Pre-deposit Order:
The judgment revolves around the compliance with a pre-deposit order by litigants involved in the case. The litigants were granted a common stay order, but despite partial relief granted by the Hon'ble High Court, they did not comply with the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the time for making the pre-deposit, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the litigants had been challenging the pre-deposit order across various forums without success, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

Consideration of Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The litigants filed miscellaneous applications seeking a waiver of pre-deposit and to proceed with the appeals on merit. However, the Tribunal, in line with the Apex Court's order, stated that it had no scope to consider these applications. The Tribunal emphasized that the right of appeal is conditional, and the litigants had not fulfilled the pre-deposit conditions, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

Review Application Status:
The Tribunal awaited the certified copy of the Apex Court's order and noted that review petitions were filed by the litigants. Despite adjourning the matter to ascertain the status of the review application, no review order was presented before the Tribunal, compelling them to follow the Apex Court's order from March 30, 2009.

Applicability of the Right of Appeal:
The Tribunal highlighted that the right of appeal is not absolute, and litigants must fulfill pre-deposit conditions to proceed. The failure of the litigants to comply with the pre-deposit order led to the dismissal of their appeals, as per the legal provisions.

Dismissal of Appeals:
Based on the litigants' non-compliance with the pre-deposit conditions and their repeated attempts to challenge the order, the Tribunal dismissed all four appeals following the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay D. Meheta. The Tribunal emphasized that without fulfilling the pre-deposit conditions, the appeals could not be heard on merit.

Guidance by Apex Court's Order:
The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeals, made it clear that they would be guided by any order or direction from the Apex Court regarding the review application. The Tribunal committed to carrying out any direction given by the Apex Court in this regard.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case, focusing on compliance with pre-deposit orders, the conditional nature of the right of appeal, and the dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with legal requirements.

---