U. L. Bhat, C. J.— Appellant is an insurer which has been directed by the Tribunal to pay compensation to the claimants by an award made under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'), Appellant has not made deposit as contemplated under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 of the Act. Registry has raised objection to the maintainability of the appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Sub-section (1) of section 173 of the Act states that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. The first proviso to sub-section (1) reads as follows : "Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court ." Second proviso is unnecessary for the purpose of this case. 3. The appeal is required to be filed within 90 days from the date of award. Power is granted to the Court to entertain the appeal after the expiry of this period, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. First proviso contains condition for entertain ability of the appeal, namely, deposit with the High Court of Rs. 25.000/- or 50% of the amount to awarded, whichever less. Deposit has to be made in the manner directed by the High Court. 4. It is argued that High Court has not given any direction regarding the manner of deposit. This statement is correct if it means that there is no specific rule made by the High Court regarding the manner in which deposit under first proviso to section 173 (1) of the Act is to be made. The statement is erroneous if it means that the High Court has not laid down the manner in which deposit of money is to be made. Chapter XVII of the Gauhati High Court Rules deals with deposit and payment of money. The statement is erroneous if it means that the High Court has not laid down the manner in which deposit of money is to be made. Chapter XVII of the Gauhati High Court Rules deals with deposit and payment of money. Rule 1 and subsequent rules indicate the exact manner in which money is to be deposited in the Court. We are of the opinion that the manner of deposit prescribed in Chapter XVII of the Gauhati High Court Rules constitutes, "manner directed by the High Court" for the purpose of first proviso to section 173 (1) of the Act also. 5. Appellant has not made the required deposit of Rs 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded whichever is less. This has given rise to doubt the maintainability of appeal. Registry has not received the appeal on file. Registry, as per existing practice, has given it a number as "Tender No". Use of the word 'Tender' means that the appeal is not received on file. 6. Bar under proviso to section 173 (1) of the Act is that no appeal shall be entertained unless deposit has been made with the High Court. The expression 'entertain' ordinarily means 'admit' or "admit for consideration". In Lala Ram vs. Hari Ram, AIR 1970 SC 1093 , the rule regarding 'entertain­ment' of application contained in section 417 (4), CrPC has been interpreted as "file or received by the Court". Such a restricted meaning has been given to expression in the particular context in which it has been used, namely, against entertainment after expiry of 60 days from the date of order of acquittal. This interpretation came to be necessary in view of its impact on the time limit prescribed in the particular provision. Provisions in several Acts contain references to entertainment of appeals. One of such provisions in UP Sales-tax Act, 1948 came up for consideration in M/s Lakshmiratan Engineering Works vs. Assistant Commissioner, Sales-tax, AIR 1968 SC 488 . The provision under consideration stated, inter alia, that any dealer aggrieved may appeal to such prescribed authority provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax. The provision under consideration stated, inter alia, that any dealer aggrieved may appeal to such prescribed authority provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax. Having regard to the context and the ordinary meaning of the word 'entertain' as ''admit for consideration", the Supreme Court held that satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax should be before the Court at the stage when the appeal comes up for admission or consideration and not while receiving appeal on file. This decision was followed in Hindustan Commercial Bank vs. Punnu Sahu, AIR 1970 SC 1384 . 7. Having regard to the language used in first proviso to section 173 (1) of the Act, the ordinary meaning of, the expression 'entertain' contained therein must receive its ordinary meaning, namely, "admit for consideration". It must follow that deposit need not be made at the time of filing though it could be made at that stage. For the purpose of proviso, it is sufficient that deposit is made when appeal conje^ up for admission Of consideration. If deposit is not so made, it will be open to the Court to reject the appeal; it is also open to the Court to adjourn consideration of appeal to another date. As to which course is to be adopted in a given case depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant has already handed over an A/c Payee cheque for requisite amount to its counsel. In the circumstances, we adjourn the case by two (2) weeks making it clear that if the amount has not been deposited by that time and the matter comes up for admission, there is every risk of the appeal being rejected.