Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Kap Steel Ltd. vs R. Sasikala on 22 August, 1989

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Neeru Dabur And Ors. on 9 December, 2004

(10) Learned Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that Clause (a) to Section 30(1) of the Act deals with an appeal against an order awarding compensation and Clause (aa) deals with an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A and, therefore, contended that if Insurance Company is aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A and wants to file an appeal against the order under Clause (aa), that amount has also to be deposited. But the Third Proviso to Section 30(1) reads that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Clause (aa) was inserted by the Amending Act 8 of 1959 with effect from 1.6.1959. But in the Third Proviso there is no amendment with regard to an appeal under Clause (aa) also that the said amount has to be deposited with the Commissioner. Since the third proviso reads that deposit has to be made of the compensation awarded under Clause (a) when an appeal is filed, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Insurance Company has to deposit the penalty and interest also which is awarded under Clause (aa). I agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Kap Steel Ltd. (supra), and hold that Insurance Company is not liable to deposit the penalty and interest also at the time of filing the appeal. I, therefore, overrule the objection of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable for non-compliance of the third proviso to Section 30 (1) of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A K Yog - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Neeru Dabur And Ors. on 9 December, 2004

Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that Clause (a) to Section 30(1) of the Act deals with an appeal against an order awarding compensation and Clause (aa) deals with an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A and therefore contended that if the Insurance Company is aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A and wants to file an appeal against the order under Clause (aa) and that amount has also to be deposited. But the third proviso to Section 30(1) reads that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Clause (aa) was inserted by the Amending Act 8 of 1959 with effect from 1.6.1959. But in the third proviso there is no amendment with regard to an appeal under Clause (aa) also that the said amount has to be deposited with the Commissioner. Since the third proviso reads that the deposit has to be made of the compensation awarded under Clause (a) when an appeal is filed, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Insurance Company has to deposit the penalty and interest also which is awarded under Clause (aa). I agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Kap Steel Ltd. (supra), and hold that the Insurance Company is not liable to deposit the penalty and interest also at the time of the filing the appeal. I therefore, overrule the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable for non-compliance of the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act."
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - A K Yog - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shaik Alimuddin And Anr. on 22 September, 1994

12. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that clause (a) to Section 30(1) of the Act deals with an appeal against an order awarding compensation and clause (aa) deals with an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A and therefore contended that if the Insurance Company is aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner awarding interest or penalty under Section 4-A and wants to file an appeal against the order under Clause (aa) and that amount has also to be deposited. But the third proviso to Section 30(1) reads that no appeal by an employer under Clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Clause (aa) was inserted by the Amending Act 8 of 1959 with effect from 1-6-1959. But in the third proviso there is no amendment with regard to an appeal under clause (aa) also that the said amount has to be deposited with Commissioner. Since the third proviso reads that the deposit has to be made of the compensation awarded under Clause (a) when an appeal is field, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Insurance Company has to deposit the penalty and interest also which is awarded under Clause (aa). I agree with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Kap Steel Ltd. (supra), and hold that the Insurance Company is not liable to deposit the penalty and interest also at the time of filing the appeal. I therefore, overrule the objection of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable for non-compliance of the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), ... vs Hajarat Ali Mailasab And Another on 16 April, 1998

In the case of M/s. Kap Steel Limited, supra, it has been held by this Court that "depositing of the amount of interest or penalty imposed under Section 4-A of the Act in addition to the compensation awarded or otherwise is not a condition for preferring an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act". It is thus clear from the above decision of this Court that the deposit of the compensation amount is only contemplated under Section 30 of the Act for preferring an appeal and it is not necessary for the appellant to deposit the interest and the penalty amount awarded by the Commissioner. In this case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has deposited the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner and in proof thereof he has also produced a certificate of deposit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - B Padmaraj - Full Document

Aboobacker vs Santhosh.K.V

The provision for appeal does not mandate or insist on a pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal against an order imposing interest or penalty; if such appeal is only against the imposition of interest or penalty. The above appeal does not challenge any other findings of the tribunal, except for the factual determination of date of accident, which again is for the purpose of computing the actual interest liability. We are of the opinion that no pre-deposit can be insisted in such cases. We are fortified in our finding by the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Kap Steel Ltd. v. R. Sasikala (1990 ACJ 913).
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Navinbhai vs Punmaram on 11 October, 2011

3.0 Considering the above ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, it appears to me that present appellant has preferred this First Appeal under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act and so the third provision of Section 30(1) of the Act is not attracted to the same. Hence office is directed to register First Appeal in absence of receipt of deposit in the lower Court filed by the present appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - G B Shah - Full Document
1