Pre-deposit compliance and costs govern restoration of appeals, while attachment lifts only after payment proof is shown.

Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction was allowed only where the ordered deposit had later been made, and then subject to payment of costs. Appeals in which payment remained outstanding were not restored, though liberty was given to seek restoration after compliance. Where the appellant had deposited the pre-deposit amounts for all concerned appeals, the attachment of property, continued as a coercive measure, was directed to be lifted once proof of payment of the restoration costs was produced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether appeals dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order were liable to be restored on subsequent deposit and payment of costs. (ii) Whether the attachment of the appellant's properties was liable to be lifted after compliance with the directions for pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether appeals dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order were liable to be restored on subsequent deposit and payment of costs.

Analysis: The appeals had earlier been dismissed only because the directed pre-deposit had not been made. The later conduct showed payment of the pre-deposit amounts in respect of some appeals, and the order of the High Court in a connected matter was taken into account to permit restoration in the interest of justice. The Tribunal distinguished between those appeals where the directed amount had already been deposited and those where only willingness was shown but payment was still outstanding. Costs were imposed for the delayed compliance.

Conclusion: Appeals in which the directed pre-deposit had been paid were restored subject to payment of costs, while the remaining appeals were not restored and liberty was granted to seek restoration after compliance.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of the appellant's properties was liable to be lifted after compliance with the directions for pre-deposit.

Analysis: Since the pre-deposit amounts in respect of all appeals of the concerned appellant had been deposited, the attachment that had been continued as a coercive measure no longer required to remain in force. The lifting of attachment was linked to production of proof of payment of the costs imposed for restoration.

Conclusion: The attachment was directed to be lifted after proof of payment of costs.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by restoring only the appeals backed by actual compliance, declining restoration where payment was still pending, and directing release of attached property upon completion of the ordered formalities.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration after dismissal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction may be granted in the interest of justice on subsequent compliance and payment of costs, but only where the ordered deposit has in fact been made; mere willingness without payment is insufficient.

---