JEETU BHAI MOTWANI Vs. JEKHRAM NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are heard on I.A. No.324/2017 raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal.

(2.) Shri Uttam Maheshwari by placing reliance on 1998 (1) MPLJ 188 (Tulsiram Vs. Daryaobai) contended that the appellant in the present case has called in question the impugned order whereby the interest was awarded. The appellant had deposited the principal amount before filing this appeal but did not deposit the amount of interest. Resultantly, in the teeth of principle laid down in Tulsiram (supra), the appeal is not tenable.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the language employed in the enabling provision i.e. Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and contended that the 3rd proviso makes it clear that amount which needs to be deposited before preparing appeal is flowing from Clause (a) which is confined to the main amount of compensation and does not include interest which is separately covered under Clause (aa). He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported in 1992 IILJ 61 (M/s Kap Steel Ltd. Vs. Smt. R. Sasikala). Lastly, reliance is placed on Rule 16 Chapter X of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 to contend that this rule also envisages deposit of amount when appeal is preferred against the order confined to Clause (a).