20.09.2024 there was no time for the respondent to be heard after filing the reply and therefore, as an interim arrangement the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants volunteered to deposit 25% of the pre-deposit amount upfront and let this Tribunal decide whether the appellants are entitled to a waiver of the balance of 25% at a later stage. Accordingly, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹1,44,75,000/- toward pre-deposit and considering the threshold amount as ₹5,78,32,283.70. Toward the aforesaid, a sum of ₹15 lakhs was paid upfront by the appellants on the date of the order and the balance amount a sum of ₹1,29,75,000/- was directed to be paid in two equal instalments within the gap of two weeks each and the appellants failed to pay that amount, and resulted in getting the appeal dismissed. When the appellants were not able to comply with the payment of the entire amount an extension was sought. Some extension was also granted and they had to pay a balance of ₹93 lakhs. The appeal was dismissed because further extension of time was not granted and the appellants have now come up with an application for restoration of this appeal and to accept the balance amount belatedly. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed this application stating that the appellants have been taking undue advantage of the order that they have received and after 20.09.2024 three months have lapsed and they have not paid even the 25% amount which was directed to be paid There are no bonafides in their submission and therefore, the further extension may not be granted and the appeal may not be restored to file, submits the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
