Supreme Court allows appeal, directs Tribunal to accept belated payment, sets six-month deadline

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the High Court's decision upholding the Tribunal's rejection of appeal restoration due to non-payment of the "pre-deposit" amount. The Court directed the Tribunal to accept the belatedly paid amount, allowing the appeal to proceed without time constraints. Emphasizing the need for swift resolution, the Court set a six-month deadline for the Tribunal to hear the appeal, keeping all arguments open for both parties. The case was resolved with a stipulation that the ruling should not be precedent-setting for future cases.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court rejecting restoration of appeals due to non-payment of "pre-deposit" amount.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which confirmed the orders of the Tribunal rejecting the restoration of appeals due to non-compliance with the "pre-deposit" requirement. The appellants had initially failed to pay the required amount, leading to the dismissal of their appeal by the Tribunal, a decision that was upheld by the High Court. Despite subsequent compliance with the Tribunal's directions regarding the "pre-deposit," the appellants faced dismissal of their restoration application by the Tribunal and subsequent rejection by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, decided that accepting the "pre-deposit amount" now would not prejudice either party. Therefore, the Court directed the Tribunal to accept the amount paid by the appellants in compliance with the previous order and proceed to hear the appeal on its merits without being constrained by the period of limitation. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, setting a deadline of six months and leaving all contentions open for both parties.

In conclusion, the civil appeal was disposed of based on the above directions, with a specific clarification that the order should not serve as a precedent in other cases.

---