SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Deputy Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanni Bee And Ors. And Others - Respondents
MA No. 784 of 2012
Decided On : 28-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Sudhir Dandwate – Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Kuldeep Bhargava – Advocate

The requirement to deposit the awarded compensation, including interest, under the statute is a prerequisite for hearing an appeal. Failure to deposit interest at the time of filing is a curable procedural defect, and the appeal becomes maintainable upon the subsequent deposit of the outstanding interest amount.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal - Whether memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by certificate of deposit of both principal amount and interest - Failure to deposit interest at time of filing - Whether curable defect. (Paras 3, 4, 7)

(B) Appellate Procedure - Interpretation of "no appeal shall lie" - Statutory requirement of deposit of total amount awarded including interest - The provision implies that an appeal cannot be heard until the full amount is deposited; it does not render the appeal void ab initio - The defect is curable by subsequent deposit - (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The employer filed an appeal against a compensation order issued by the lower court under the relevant statute. While the principal amount was deposited prior to filing the appeal, the interest accrued on the compensation was deposited several years later. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the appeal, contending that the failure to deposit the interest along with the memorandum of appeal rendered it non-maintainable.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the requirement to deposit the amount payable under the order includes the interest part. However, interpreting the phrase "no appeal shall lie," the court determined that the failure to deposit the interest at the time of filing is a procedural defect that can be cured. Once the total amount, including interest, is deposited, the appeal is considered properly filed and becomes maintainable.

Issues: Whether an appeal filed under the statute is maintainable if the interest on the awarded amount is not deposited along with the memorandum of appeal, and whether such a defect is curable.

Ratio Decidendi: The provision requiring the deposit of the awarded amount is a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal rather than a condition for the filing itself. As the defect of non-payment of interest is curable, the appeal persists as valid once the requisite amount is deposited, provided that any resultant delay is addressed if necessary.

Result: Objection regarding maintainability overruled; appeal held maintainable.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural timeline of the appeal filing and deposit history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments concerning the requirement of interest deposit for maintaining an appeal under section 30. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT :

1 . This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurer against the order dated 27/8/2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

2. On 31/7/2024 when this case was listed for hearing on admission, learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised an objection that the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has not deposited the interest amount. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant sought time to verify the aforesaid fact and argue the matter. On 25/9/2024 counsel for the appellant informed the Court that interest has been deposited and the receipt will be filed. The receipt was brought on record. On the basis of the documents available on record following dates for the purpose of deciding the question of maintainability are relevant :-

(i) On 18/4/2012 appeal was filed. Before filing the appeal on 13/3/2012 principal amount was deposited.

(ii) On 5/2/2020, learned counsel for the respondents raised objection for the first time that the appeal is not maintainable on account of non-deposit of the interest.

(iii) On 21/7/2021 the interest was deposited.

3 . Counsel for the respondents submits that the interest has been deposited subsequent to filing of appeal thus the appeal was not maintainable. He submits that the requirement of the provisions of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is that no appeal by employer under Clause (a) of sub section (1) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied a certificate by the Commissioner to the fact that appellant has deposited with it amount payable under the order appealable against. Thus he says the requirement of law is that appeal must accompany a certificate of payment of amount payable. He submits that amount payable is not only the principal amount awarded by the impugned order but even the interest thereon. Thus when the appeal was filed it must have accompanied with certificate of full deposit ie., principal amount as well as the amount of interest as the interest part has been deposited subsequent to filing of the appeal, thus now the defect is not curable and appeal is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply to objection of the respondents submits that requirement of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 is of deposit of the amount mentioned in Clause (a) of sub - section (1). There is no mention of Clause (aa) of sub - section (1) in the proviso thus he submits that as per Clause (a) only principal amount is required to be deposited, interest and penalty are mentioned in Clause (aa) which is not mentioned in proviso thus there is no default and the appeal is maintainable. He further submits that in any case the default has now been cured. Thus even if it is accepted that the interest was also required to be paid then also appeal is maintainable for the reason that the amount has now been paid in the year 2021 itself.

5 . In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Ram Kishore Mishra , 2012 (4) MPLJ 429 and Oriental Insurance Co., Jabalpur V/s. Siyabai & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine M.P. 10950. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Lala Ram & Ors. MACD, 2015 (1) M.P. 465.

6 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on record.

7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that 3rd proviso to sub – Section (1) of Section 30 refers only to Clause (a) thus only principal amount is required to be deposited and not the interest part for main

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top