HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2008 Parekh Plantinum Ltd. and anr. ... Petitioners Versus The Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr.Jitu Motwani i/by M/s. PDS Legal for Petitioners. Mr.K.R. Chaudhary with Mr.M.I. Sethna for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . there is an order of adjudication against the Petitioners herein. the appeal was preferred and an application moved or waiver of predeposit. when the matter came up before the learned tribunal, none was present on behalf of the Petitioners herein. The tribunal passed an order for pre deposit. The Petitioners did not comply with the said order. . According to Petitioners, they applied for modification of the order by their application dated 6.9.2007.The order for pre deposit was passed on 21.5.2007. In the application the only contention raised was that they are BIFR company and to keep the order in abeyance and to her the appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Petitioners were represented and the attention of the tribunal was drawn, according to learned counsel to the application dated 6.9.2007. The tribunal has perused the issue by observing as under : " .... However, such reasons are not described in the letter". . Even other reasons given were considered and after considering the same, as there was failure to pre deposit the appeal was dismissed. . This Petition by the Petitioners is to challenge the said order. The learned counsel sets out various reasons. In our opinion, there was order on 21.5.2007. All that the Petitioners did was a day before the date for hearing, they took out an application seeking to keep the order in abeyance on 6.9.2007. They took no steps to challenge the said order. The application dated 6.9.2007 was considered. However, in order to give an opportunity to the Petitioner, if they re so desirous of contesting the proceedings, the impugned order of dismissal will be set aside on the Petitioners herein depositing 50%% of the penalty as awarded before the tribunal within six weeks from today. . With the above observations, Petition disposed of. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)