IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 47 of 2005() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/11/2004 IN CMP.1/05 IN EIC.52/2003 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... : APPELLANTRESPONDENT: - ---------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT: ----------------------- M/S. STANDARD FURNITURE, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE-673 003, REP. BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, M. ASHOK KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.D.RAVINDRA PRASAD FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = INS.APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode in CMP 1/05 in E.I.C.52/03. The brief facts are to the effect that there was a demand by the ESI Corporation as per C-19 notice for Rs.2093/- and a second C-19 notice for Rs.4,16,455/- which according to the Corporation represents the regular contribution for the period from 9/99 to 5/02 with interest up to 7.11.03 and future interest. When the matter came up for admission the Court instead of directing 50% of the amount to be deposited ordered only Rs.50,000/- to be deposited and made a further direction that the said amount shall be kept in suspense account subject to the directions to be issued at the time of the final disposal of the case. Thereafter, when the matter came up for enquiry it was submitted that the entire amount due under the notices were remitted and therefore there is no necessity to adjudicate the Ins. Appeal 47 OF 2005 -:2:- legality of the claims. Now, what the E.S.I. Court has done is only in the form of issuance of a direction to the E.S.I Corporation to pay 15% interest on the deposit. It has to be remembered that the amount was deposited at a point of time admittedly when it was due to the E.S.I. Corporation. It was to avoid revenue recovery proceedings or forceful realisation of the amount, the Court using its discretion directed the appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- and granted a stay. The Court also made it specifically clear that the said amount has to be kept in suspense account which means that it cannot be used by the E.S.I. Corporation. So it was under the strict direction of the Court the amount was deposited. It is true that subsequent to the deposit and before a final adjudication the appellant himself deposited the entire amount. It was at that point of time he should have brought to the notice of the authorities or to the notice of the Court regarding this Rs.50,000/-, which was not done. Therefore, I feel directing the E.S.I. Corporation to pay 15% interest for the amount in deposit will not be legal or proper. Ins. Appeal 47 OF 2005 -:3:- The ESI Corporation has also not enjoyed the said deposit because as it was lying only in a suspense stage as per the directions of the Court. Therefore I interfere with the direction given and hold that the ESI Corporation is not liable to pay any interest but I make it clear that respondent is entitled to get back the amount of Rs.50,000/- which is deposit in the suspense account. The Ins. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-