Pre-deposit remand order required Larger Bench review; interim protection granted against dismissal for non-compliance.

A prior Division Bench remand in a pre-deposit dispute did not conclusively decide that the cases involved similar facts, because no such factual finding was expressly recorded. The Court noted that the Tribunal had distinguished its earlier orders and relied on Supreme Court authority on a similar principle, so the correctness of the earlier view required reconsideration. It therefore formulated the issue for consideration by a Larger Bench and granted interim protection to prevent dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction until the matter was finally examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier order remanding the pre-deposit dispute required reconsideration by a Larger Bench, and whether interim protection should be granted against dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction.

Analysis: The order noted that the earlier Division Bench had remanded the matter on the premise that the Tribunal should take a consistent view in similar cases, but it also recorded that the Tribunal had in fact distinguished its earlier orders and had relied on Supreme Court authority on a similar principle. The Court held that the earlier remand order did not record any finding that the cases were on similar facts and therefore could not be treated as concluding that issue. Since the correctness of the earlier view required reconsideration, the Court formulated a question for consideration by a Larger Bench and protected the appellants in the meantime from dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order.

Conclusion: The matter was placed for consideration before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative directions, and interim protection against dismissal for want of pre-deposit was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim order directing remand on the basis of consistency in pre-deposit matters does not become conclusive on similarity of facts unless that finding is expressly recorded; where the correctness of such an order is in doubt, the issue may be referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

---