Tribunal denies modification but grants extension and waiver of deposit, providing relief to appellant.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for modification of the order directing a deposit of Rs. One crore, citing that the subsequent decision was not raised during proceedings and did not constitute a valid ground for modification. Despite rejecting the modification, the Tribunal granted the appellant eight weeks to deposit the balance amount, waived the pre-deposit requirement, and provided a stay against recovery for 180 days to address the appellant's financial difficulties.

---

---

Issues: Modification of Tribunal order, consideration of subsequent development, financial difficulties, extension of time for deposit

Modification of Tribunal order:
The appellant sought modification of the Tribunal's order directing the deposit of Rs. One crore. The appellant argued that a subsequent decision in another case should have been considered, but the Tribunal found that the decision was not brought up during the proceedings, and therefore, there was no apparent error in the original order. The Tribunal held that modifying the order would amount to reviewing its own decision, which it does not have the power to do. Consequently, the application for modification was rejected.

Consideration of subsequent development:
The appellant contended that a subsequent decision should have been taken into account, but the Tribunal ruled that since this decision was not raised during the proceedings, it could not be considered a subsequent development. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could have brought up this argument based on a previous High Court decision. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in the original order and rejected the application for modification.

Financial difficulties:
The appellant raised financial difficulties as a ground for modification. The Annual Report indicated that the appellant had made a profit and not incurred any losses. However, despite rejecting the application for modification, the Tribunal decided to grant the appellant eight weeks to deposit the balance amount in the interest of justice. The requirement for pre-deposit of balance dues was waived subject to compliance, and a stay against recovery was granted for 180 days from the date of the order.

Extension of time for deposit:
Even though the application for modification was rejected, the Tribunal exercised discretion and allowed the appellant additional time to deposit the balance amount. The Tribunal considered the interest of justice and granted an extension of eight weeks for the deposit, with a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement subject to compliance. Additionally, a stay against recovery was provided for 180 days from the date of the order to facilitate the appellant's compliance.

---