IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1993 of 2009(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- PACE CFS (P) LIMITED, DOOR NO. VI/5 OPP: PANCHAYATH SHOPPING COMPLEX, AROOR,ERNAKULAM 688 534, BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, N.S. ROUND, TRICHUR -20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS DEPTY DIRECTOR, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, N.S. ROUND, TRICHUR -20. 3. THE FEDERAL BANK, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE H.D.F.C. BANK LTD., DARRAGH SMAIL CENTRE G, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN. SRI.SANDESH RAJA, SC, FOR ESI CORPORATION SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC, HDFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1993 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the EI Court in IC 76/05 filed by the petitioner. By that order, the determination orders passed by the ESI Corporation were set aside by the EI Court and a reassessment was ordered, on condition that the petitioner remits an additional amount of Rs.35,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order. Admittedly, this direction has not been complied with before 18/3/2008 when the 30 days period expired, and therefore, the petitioner having lost the benefit of the order, the ESI Corporation cannot be faulted for Exts. P5 and P6 prohibitory orders that it has issued. 3. In the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that they were not intimated about Ext.P4 order and that they came to know of the same only when enquiries were made following the receipt of Ext.P1. It is stated that therefore they made applications to the EI Court, obtained a copy of Ext.P4, which disclosed about the conditions imposed by the EI Court. 4. If there is any substance in what the petitioner contends, the WPC 1993/09 :2 : petitioner also cannot be faulted for the lapse that has occurred. Now that prohibitory orders have been issued to respondents 3 and 4, resulting in total freezing of the accounts and demanding full payment of Rs.1,32,000/-, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Ext.P4 order to the petitioner on terms. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (i) On the production of a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent will draw a Demand Draft for an amount of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the 1st respondent and forward the same. (ii) Once the Demand Draft is drawn and made available to the 1st respondent, Exts. P5 and P6 prohibitory orders issued by the 2nd respondent will stand lifted and the petitioner will be free to operate the account. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent, who shall immediately draw the Demand Draft and make it available to the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp