Restoration of appeal after belated deposit should ordinarily follow when the deposit condition is eventually satisfied.

Where a deposit ordered as a condition for hearing an appeal is ultimately made, the appellate forum should ordinarily exercise discretion to restore the appeal and decide it on merits. The High Court found that the required deposits had been made, though belatedly, and that the delay was explained by financial constraints. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have refused restoration merely for delayed compliance. The refusal was set aside and the appeals were directed to be restored for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal ought to have restored the appeals and heard them on merits after the amounts ordered to be deposited had been deposited belatedly.

Analysis: The petitions challenged the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeals on the ground of delayed compliance with the deposit condition. The Court noted that the required deposits had already been made and that the appellants had explained the delay by reference to financial constraints. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of hearing the appeals on merits rather than declining restoration.

Conclusion: The refusal to restore the appeals was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to restore the appeals and decide them on merits, if the ordered amount had been paid.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded and the appellants were granted restoration of their appeals for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the deposit directed as a condition for hearing an appeal is ultimately made, the appellate forum should ordinarily exercise its discretion to restore the appeal and hear it on merits.

---