Pre-deposit compliance and jurisdiction limits barred restoration after appeals were dismissed for delayed payment.

Belated compliance with a pre-deposit direction did not justify restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance, because the deposit was made long after the stipulated time. A subsequent direction issued by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies Act could not operate as an appellate mandate over the Tribunal, as the Board was not an appellate authority and lacked jurisdiction to require recall of the dismissal order. The appellants' prolonged inaction, coupled with no challenge to the earlier dismissal order and no higher forum direction, independently weighed against restoration. The restoration applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction could be restored on the basis of a belated deposit and a direction issued by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.

Analysis: The required amount was directed to be deposited within a fixed time, but the appellants made the deposit only after a long delay. The subsequent direction of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was issued in proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and could not operate as an appellate mandate over the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Board was not an appellate authority and its direction to recall the dismissal order was beyond jurisdiction. Independently, the prolonged inaction of the appellants and the absence of any challenge to the earlier dismissal order or any higher forum direction weighed against restoration.

Conclusion: The applications for restoration were rejected.

---