https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196441 The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Second Proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation Act, stating that the requirement of a pre-deposit for filing an appeal is not discriminatory and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory, allowing conditions to be imposed to regulate its exercise. It highlighted the discretion of the Appellate Tribunal to reduce the deposit amount and clarified that the deposited sum would be refunded if the appeal is unsuccessful, preventing prejudice. The petitions challenging the provision were dismissed for lacking merit. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:32:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196441 The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Second Proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation Act, stating that the requirement of a pre-deposit for filing an appeal is not discriminatory and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory, allowing conditions to be imposed to regulate its exercise. It highlighted the discretion of the Appellate Tribunal to reduce the deposit amount and clarified that the deposited sum would be refunded if the appeal is unsuccessful, preventing prejudice. The petitions challenging the provision were dismissed for lacking merit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196441