JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the alleged demands made by the opposite parties under Annexure-8 series, 10, 12, 13 and consequential attachment order at Annexure-14 in exercise of power under the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948. 2. Short fact involved in the case is that petitioner is a Corporation defined under Section 13 of the Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1955 and is incorporated under the Companies Act involving business of transmission and distribution of electricity in the State of Orissa. Opposite party No. 1-Corporation, is an authority under the Employees State Insurance Act. Originally the generation, transmission and distribution business of electricity was carried on by Orissa State Electricity Board, a statutory body constituted under the Electricity Supply Act. Employees State Insurance facility was not available at several places of the Board. Even, none of the employees were availing the ESI benefit even if the ESI facility was available at some places. However, the Orissa State Electricity Board was providing better medical facility in comparison to the benefit available under ESI Scheme. As a major of welfare of the employees, at some point of time, it was agreed for contributing Corporation share for medical benefit for the employees of Orissa State Electricity Board at certain areas where the ESI benefit was available. While the matter stood thus, by virtue of introduction of Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 and the Orissa Electricity Reform (Transfer of undertakings, assets, liabilities, proceedings and personnel) Rules/Schemes, 1996, the power of Orissa State Electricity Board was ceased to function with effect from 1.4.1996. It is at this point of time when the new reform took place, the ESI Corporation started issuing demand notice on 9.1.1998 demanding Rs.1,10,03,759/- claiming to be Corporation share towards medical benefits in respect of 14 units of the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board for the period from 1.4.1970 to 31.3.1994, which was followed with another demand notice dated 23.2.1998 making therein a further demand on the Corporation share prior to 1970-71. Under the merger notification, any dispute with regard to erstwhile Board was to be considered after check up of all the records. It is alleged, there was no examination involving the petitioner and the demands were being issued and consequently the petitioner-corporation wrote a letter to the ESI Corporation inviting a joint discussion under Annexure-3. Under the merger notification, any dispute with regard to erstwhile Board was to be considered after check up of all the records. It is alleged, there was no examination involving the petitioner and the demands were being issued and consequently the petitioner-corporation wrote a letter to the ESI Corporation inviting a joint discussion under Annexure-3. It is further claimed by the petitioner-corporation that even though a joint discussion was held on 8.10.1998 where the ESI Corporation authorities failed to produce any record and reasonable explanation justifying its demands. Yet the ESI Corporation went on making demand after demands. It is alleged that on further discussion of the matter between the parties, the demand was finally considered in a joint discussion on 23.2.1999 followed by another discussion on 26.2.1999. It is claimed that it was finally decided that the petitioner-corporation would pay an amount of Rs.1,13,87,345/- to the ESI Corporation towards full and final settlement of the dues without going through the detail documents and in compliance whereof the petitioner-corporation paid the whole amount of Rs.1,13,87,345/- by way of a letter dated 26.2.1999 and the amount dully received by the Recovery Officer of the ESI Corporation making an endorsement thereon as clearly borne from Annexure-7. It is alleged that even after this, the ESI Corporation not only went on making further demand by way of additional interest but also went on initiating certificate proceeding covering interest on the delayed payment. 3. Sri Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-corporation challenging the impugned orders contended that in view of the admitted position of a settlement between the parties on 23.2.1999 settling the outstanding at Rs.1,13,87,345/-, the ESI Corporation is unjustified in making further demand and as a result the demands under Annexure-8 series as well as Annexures-10, 12 and 13 and consequential attachment order under Annexure-14 since bad be declared as arbitrary, illegal and bad in law and thereby quashed. 4. In this opposition, Sri Dash, learned counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party nos.3 and 4 while vehemently objecting the claim of the petitioner-corporation that there has been a settlement in between the parties contended that there is no material available establishing the petitioner’s such claim. 4. In this opposition, Sri Dash, learned counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party nos.3 and 4 while vehemently objecting the claim of the petitioner-corporation that there has been a settlement in between the parties contended that there is no material available establishing the petitioner’s such claim. Further, since there is delayed payment, the petitioner-corporation is bound to pay the interest on the same and as such justified the notices under Annexures-8 series, 10, 12, 13 as well as the notices of attachment under Annexure-14. 5. This matter was heard on earlier occasion on 27.10.2016. This Court considering the specific pleading of the petitioner-corporation on its claim for a settlement between the parties involving the outstanding as clearly shown under Annexure-7, the pleadings from paragraph-12 of the writ petition, considering the claim of the ESI Corporation, considering some communications contrary to the factual position available on record, for having no specific objection involving the pleadings in paragraph-12 of the writ petition and further taking into consideration the notice of demand of interest, kept the matter part heard asking the Advocate for ESI Corporation to take further instruction in the matter. Today, during course of further hearing, considering the submission of learned Senior Counsel, Sri Panigrahi and Sri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the ESI Corporation, this Court does not find any proof of the claim of ESI Corporation that there has been no settlement in between the parties. On the other hand, from acceptance of the dues paid by GRIDCO without any resistances it becomes clear that there is some short of settlement between the parties. This Court further examines the pleadings of the parties and comparing the pleadings made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition along with the response of ESI Corporation in paragraph-12 of its counter replying the averments in paragraphs-7 to 12 of the writ petition, this Court finds the ESI Corporation has no specific denial with regard to the claim of the petitioner-corporation in the matter of settlement between the parties. However, considering the rival contentions of the parties, and from the amount paid by the petitioner-corporation that the amount being received by the Recovery Officer of the ESI Corporation, this Court finds at no point of time, there was a demand of Rs.1,13,87,345/- looking to the series of demands against the petitioner-corporation involving the writ petition and payment of this amount also otherwise establishes the claim of settlement by the GRID Corporation. From perusal of the documents vide Annexure-8 series, this Court finds these are two demands involving Certificate Case No. 255/98 and Certificate Case No. 5/99 and the demand in both the certificate cases amounting to Rs.16,69,618/- appears to be on the head of interest for the period from 1.3.1998 to 2.3.1999. Similarly, looking to the document vide Annexure-10, this Court finds this document also amply establishes that the outstanding towards Board share i.e. the present petitioner-corporation share is Rs.1,13,90,271/- whereas the interest is Rs.16,69,618/-. Annexure-13 also clearly reflects the same and in absence of any other demand towards principal as against petitioner-corporation share being available, there appears no doubt that the claim at the instance of the ESI Corporation boils down to interest part only and there remain no doubt on the claim on arrear coming to be Rs.1,13,90,271/- finally. Considering the pleadings of the petitioner in paragraph-12 of the writ petition and the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-corporation, specifically claiming that the contribution of the Corporation has been settled on a joint discussion between the parties and in absence of any material contrary to the above claim, this Court has already come to hold that the dispute between the parties with regard to the petitioner-corporation has been settled at Rs.1,13,87,345/-, which is being accepted by the Recovery Officer of the ESI Corporation on 26.2.1999 as clearly shown under Annexure-7. Now question remains undetermined in absence of any material support in the present case as to when the settlement was arrived between the parties in the matter of principal so that the ESI Corporations may be entitled to any interest for the delayed payment of the principal. In spite of giving chance, the ESI Corporation is unable to throw any light through material document as to when the settlement was arrived at. The petitioner is also unable to throw any light as to when the settlement was arrived at. 6. In spite of giving chance, the ESI Corporation is unable to throw any light through material document as to when the settlement was arrived at. The petitioner is also unable to throw any light as to when the settlement was arrived at. 6. Under the circumstance, this Court is unable to accept the claim of interest of the ESI Corporation from 1.3.1998 to 2.3.1999 and as such while setting aside the demands under Annexures-8 series, 10, 12, 13 as sell as the attachment notice under Annexure-14 and since the question of interest remained in doubt, remits back the matter to the ESI Corporation to sit with the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and take a decision on the question of interest referring to the records concerning the parties providing a chance of hearing to the Grid Corporation and satisfying its own case. It is made clear that the matter is remitted back on the question of interest as indicated in Annexure-8 series only. The decision, as directed hereinabove, be taken within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. In the result, the writ petition succeeds but however to the extent of direction contained hereinabove. No cost.