Mandatory pre-deposit for foreign exchange appeals leaves no room for equity when the statutory deposit requirement is unmet.

Pre-deposit under section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is treated as a mandatory condition for maintaining an appeal, subject only to the Tribunal's limited discretion to dispense with deposit on undue hardship. Where the appellant failed to comply with an earlier direction to deposit the penalty and no sufficient basis was shown to override the statutory pre-condition, the appeal was not maintainable. The plain language of the second proviso was applied as written, leaving no scope to dilute the requirement on equitable grounds, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appeal could proceed only upon deposit of the penalty, subject to the Tribunal's discretion to dispense with such deposit in cases of undue hardship. The appellant did not comply with the earlier order directing deposit of the full penalty, and no sufficient basis was shown to override the statutory pre-condition. The language of the second proviso to section 52(2) was treated as plain and mandatory, leaving no scope to rewrite the provision on equitable considerations.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable in the absence of the required pre-deposit and was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes pre-deposit a condition for entertaining an appeal, and the appellant fails to comply with the deposit order, the appellate authority cannot disregard the clear statutory mandate and must dismiss the appeal.

---