Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the restoration application could be allowed when the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit condition imposed for maintaining the appeal under the governing statute.
Analysis: The appeal was subject to a mandatory pre-deposit of a specified part of the penalty as a condition precedent under the statute. The earlier order granted time to deposit the amount and made dismissal automatic on default. The request to permit only a partial deposit in instalments was not supported by the statutory scheme. Since the required deposit was not made within the time granted, the appeal had already ceased to be maintainable. In these circumstances, there was no basis to restore the appeal merely on the plea of subsequent inability to make the full deposit.
Conclusion: The restoration application was not maintainable and was rejected; the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition stands.
Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement is a condition precedent to the continuation and hearing of the appeal on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes deposit of the prescribed penalty a condition precedent for maintaining an appeal, failure to comply within the time allowed renders the appeal not maintainable and bars restoration in the absence of statutory authority for instalment or partial compliance.