IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 44 of 2005 ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2005 IN CMP 110/04 IN EIC.22/2002 of E.I.COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. THE REIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, THRISSUR 20. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, E.S.I.CORPORAITION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT/APPLICANT: -------------------------------------- M.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.M.VELAYUDHAN, WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, STANDARD FURNITURE, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.D.RAVINDRA PRASAD THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm INS. APPEAL No. 44/2005 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 2359/07 AND I.A.NO. 1628/08 IN INSURANCE APPEAL NO. 44/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 13.08.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- Ins. Appeal No. 44 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Kozhikode, in CMP No.110/04 in EIC 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. The short 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 for 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 & Others [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 Ins. Appeal No.44/05 2 of India & Others [AIR 2007 (SC) 1198] it was with respect to the instalments 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 ESI 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 to 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 utilise 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 Ins. Appeal No.44/05 3 adjudication is made. One may not be able to appropriate that amount and utilise 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. Therefore, I find that the order passed by the EI 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 ESI Corporation to refund that amount at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from today. The Insurance appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps Ins. Appeal No.44/05 4