1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2009 Saha Electronics Company Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Special Director of Enforcement & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Madhu M. Patel for the Petitioners. Mr.P.S. Jetly with Mr. H.V. Mehta for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 27TH AUGUST 2009 P.C. : 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners had preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal. By an order dated 6th May 2008, the petitioners were directed to deposit 10% of the penalty imposed within 8 weeks. A review application was filed on 5th July 2008 which was dismissed on 14th August 2008. 3. None of the petitioners deposited the amount within the time stipulated. Thereafter by two bank drafts dated 31st August 2004 and 1st September 2004, the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 on 6th October 2004 deposited 2 the bank drafts before the learned Tribunal. The appeal thereafter came up for hearing some time on 6th May 2008. The learned Tribunal found that the amount had not been deposited and dismissed the appeal. It is this order which is subject matter of the petition. 4. From the record, we find that though the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 deposited the amount beyond 8 weeks from 12th February 2004, the order of dismissal however was only passed on 6th May 2008. It appears that on 6th May 2008 when the order of dismissal was passed, none of the petitioners was present and the learned Tribunal’s attention was not drawn that the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 had deposited the amount but belatedly. 5. We are of the considered view that in such a case an opportunity should be given to the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 to contest the appeals. The fact that appeals were filed and thereafter review was filed and they have moved this Court would indicate that belatedly the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 desired to pursue the appeals. In these circumstances, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court, at the highest, the respondents can be compensated in terms of costs. 6. In the light of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The impugned order dated 8th May 2008 and the consequent order dated 14th August 2008 are set aside insofar as the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 3 are concerned subject to each of the petitioners paying costs to the respondents quantified at Rs.5,000/- within 8 weeks from today. On such costs being paid, the appeal stands restored. On failure to pay costs, the order dismissing the appeal stands confirmed. (ii) It is made clear that insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the order of dismissal stands. (iii) Appeal disposed off accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)