Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 491 (KER)

E. S. I. Corporation v. Ashok Kumar

2008-08-13

M.N.KRISHNAN

body2008
Judgment : 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode, in C.M.P. No.110/04 in E.I.C. No.22/02. It was an application filed by the petitioner therein to refund Rs.50,000/- deposited by him as directed by the Court along with interest. The Court below found that the amount should be returned with 9% interest. It is against that decision, the Employees State Insurance Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Theshort question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner before the Court below is entitled to get any interest. There cannot be any dispute that the amount was deposited in pursuance of an order of the Court for preventing arrest and detention of the person in civil prison. The Court ultimately found that there is no personal liability to discharge the liability of the company and therefore, held that it could not be proceeded personally against him by arrest and detention in the prison and held that proceeding should have been against the properties. 3. Now the learned counsel for the respondent herein had cited two decisions before me in Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 1198) and Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd. v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (AIR 2003 SC 3411). In Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India and Others (AIR 2007 SC 1198) it was with respect to the installments paid for allotment of a flat and Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd. v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (AIR 2003 SC 3411) was with respect to the deposit of tender amount. In Aditya Mass Communications (P) Ltd. v. A.P.S.R.T.C. (AIR 2003 SC 3411) it was held by the Apex Court that the amount of earnest money unjustifiably retained by Corporation and had driven the contractor to series of litigations, in the other case also it was not in relation to a Court order. But, so far as this case is concerned, there was a liability cast on the Company. The E.S.I. Corporation under law proceeded against one of the directors. Most probably it wanted to raise the contention that the directors are personally liable. Before entering into that question in order avoid detention and civil prison, the Court ordered to deposit Rs.50,000/-and therefore the amount was deposited. 4. The E.S.I. Corporation under law proceeded against one of the directors. Most probably it wanted to raise the contention that the directors are personally liable. Before entering into that question in order avoid detention and civil prison, the Court ordered to deposit Rs.50,000/-and therefore the amount was deposited. 4. It is a well settled principle in law that when some amount is paid in pursuance of an order of the Court to prevent the execution of a decree, it does not amount to payment of the decree and therefore it is not a case where the party can appropriate that amount and utilize it because the very question depends upon the relief which the party is entitled to. In such a situation, when the Court directs payment, it is only a satisfaction of the condition of the order of the Court and the amount is retained by the person who had received it on behalf of the Court as well, till a final adjudication is made. One may not be able to appropriate that amount and utilize that amount for its purpose. If there was such an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner before the Court below, he should have requested the Court to see that the said amount is invested in a place which will fetch interest and so ultimately the successful party can have the benefit of the same. It has not been done. In such circumstances, I hold that when the amount is paid only as a condition to obtain a relief and there is no direction for any party to enjoy the same, the question of awarding interest does not arise. 5. Therefore, I find that the order passed by the E.I. Court is unsustainable so far as it relates to interest is concerned. But I make it clear that petitioner before the Court below is entitled for withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- and a direction is given to the E.S.I. Corporation to refund that amount at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from today. The Insurance Appeal is disposed of accordingly.