Pre-deposit waiver and pending stay request cannot be ignored before dismissing an appeal for non-payment.

An appeal should not be dismissed solely for non-payment of the penal amount where a stay application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit condition remains pending and undecided, because the appellant is entitled to have that request adjudicated before the appeal is terminated. The Court noted, however, that the appellant had not promptly disclosed the correct factual position to the appellate authority. To balance both sides, it dealt with the stay request itself, imposed a conditional deposit, and made revival of the impugned order depend on compliance. The dismissal was therefore set aside conditionally, and the appeal was to proceed on merits if the directed deposit was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of the penal amount was sustainable when a stay application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit condition was pending and not decided.

Analysis: The pending stay application showed that the appellant had sought waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. In the absence of any order on that application, the appeal could not be dismissed straightaway without adjudication on merits. At the same time, the appellant was also at fault in not bringing the correct factual position to the appellate authority's notice for a considerable period. To balance the equities, the Court itself took up the stay request and directed a conditional deposit, making the revival of the impugned order dependent on compliance.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal was set aside conditionally, and the appeal was required to be decided on merits if the directed deposit was made.

---