Restoration after delayed pre-deposit refused where prolonged default showed lack of diligence in complying with stay conditions.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a stay order was refused where the appellant delayed compliance with the required pre-deposit without a convincing explanation. The Tribunal found prolonged default and lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal, and held that restoration in such circumstances would undermine compliance with stay conditions by allowing parties to ignore deposit obligations until after dismissal. The restoration request was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, earlier dismissed for non-compliance with the stay order, deserved restoration after the appellant belatedly deposited the amount directed as pre-deposit.

Analysis: The restoration request was examined against the appellant's prolonged failure to comply with the stay order requiring a small deposit compared with the penalty imposed. The Tribunal found no justifiable or convincing explanation for the default, noted the appellant's lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal, and held that permitting restoration in such circumstances would encourage avoidance of compliance with stay conditions until after dismissal.

Conclusion: The request for restoration was rejected.

---