1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5956 OF 2008 M/s.Berger Paints India Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.V.Sridharan with Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal, for Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Jetly with Ms.Rutuja Ambekar, for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 14th August, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges 2 the order passed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2.5 crores to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Chennai Tribunal challenging a similar order. The Chennai Tribunal by order dated 12.5.2008 after considering the matter in detail granted complete waiver of pre-deposit. An application was moved before the Bombay Tribunal for reconsideration of its order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2.5 crores on the grounds stated in the application. At the hearing of the application the order passed by the Chennai Tribunal was relied on, some additional grounds were also raised. That application was rejected by order dated 18.6.2008 and therefore, the present petition has been filed challenging both the orders. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that the subject matter of challenge before both the tribunals is the same, the questions of law and facts involved are similar, still two tribunals have taken contradictory views. 3 The learned Counsel further submits that one of the grounds on which reconsideration was sought before the Bombay Tribunal was the order passed by the Chennai Tribunal. But the order passed on the application for reconsideration by the Bombay Tribunal shows that the order passed by the Chennai Tribunal has not been considered. The learned Counsel submits that there has to be an element of certainty and uniformity in the orders in relation to pre- deposit by various tribunals which are constituted under the law, when the question to be considered are similar. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the controversy. In our opinion, considering the order made by the Chennai Tribunal granting total waiver of pre- deposit, the Bombay Tribunal should have modified its order, at least reconsider its directions to deposit Rs.2.5 crores. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner fairly submits that if the case of revenue is accepted, an amount of Rs.70 lakhs would be the 4 duty. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- On the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.70 lakhs with the respondent no.3 within a period of four weeks from today, the Bombay Tribunal shall decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merit. The petition is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)