Pre-deposit compliance in pending appeals justified restoration after later deposit cured the earlier abatement issue.

The Bombay High Court considered whether appeals treated as abated for non-compliance with a later inserted pre-deposit requirement could be restored after subsequent payment. It noted that the appeals were filed when the principal Act did not require pre-deposit of the undisputed dues or ten per cent of the disputed dues, and the amendment later applied that condition to pending appeals. As the petitioner eventually deposited ten per cent of the disputed amount before the writ petition was decided, the Court held that the subsequent compliance justified another opportunity. The orders declaring abatement were set aside and the appeals were restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were liable to be treated as abated for want of pre-deposit and, if so, whether they should be restored after the petitioner subsequently deposited the disputed amount.

Analysis: The appeals were originally filed when the principal Act did not require pre-deposit of the undisputed dues or ten per cent of the disputed dues. The later amendment first applied the pre-deposit condition to pending appeals and the petitioner ultimately deposited ten per cent of the disputed amount before the writ petition was decided. In these peculiar facts, the subsequent compliance with the deposit requirement justified granting another opportunity to have the appeals decided on merits.

Conclusion: The orders declaring the appeals abated could not be sustained and the appeals were restored for fresh decision on merits.

---