Dismissed

B.Subbanna v. The Commissioner Workemens Compensation

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013WA/1094/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by an appellant challenging the non-payment of interest on a compensated sum of Rs. 90,000 deposited under the Workmen's Compensation Act, holding the appeal devoid of merits as no illegal retention was shown and the amount had been withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The appellant was permitted to make representation for payment of interest.

B.Subbanna Vs The Commissioner Workemens Compensation — Money Laundering | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

¶3

(DATED 19-06-2013)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WA No.1094 OF 2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

B. Subbanna

¶11

. . .Appellant And

¶12

The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Kurnool Region, Kurnool

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶17

WA No.1094 OF 2012

¶18

JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana )

¶19

This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 2906-2012 passed in WP No.30990 of 2010 by the learned single Judge of this Court.

¶20

2. Facts stated are:-The appellant-writ petitioner filed writ petition seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not paying interest to him on the sum of Rs.90,000/- from 09.07.1997 to 12.11.2009, as the same was retained illegally, as being illegal and arbitrary. Appellant-petitioner, earlier, filed W.P.No.4244 of 1999 questioning the order dated 26.11.1998 passed by the authority under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) wherein he also sought consequential direction for refund of the sum of Rs.90,000/- which he deposited as compensation to the claimants-respondents 2 to 5 therein. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court observed that the deposit made by the petitioner will be subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the competent authority. It is stated that subsequently, he entered into agreement with the claimants and compensation was directly paid to the claimants under the

¶21

provisions of the Act.

¶22

3. The grievance of the appellant is only with regard to payment of interest to him from 09.07.1997 to 12.11.2009 on the amounts deposited. When once the amount deposited by the appellant has been withdrawn, as observed by the leaned single Judge, the appellant is not entitled for payment of interest on the said amounts. Nothing was produced before the learned single Judge to show that the said amounts was illegally retained by the respondent. In the circumstances, the writ appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. However, learned counsel requested this Court to permit the appellant to make representation to the respondent for payment of interest on the said amounts for the above said period. It is open for the appellant to approach the appropriate authority for payment of interest by way of representation, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

________________________ N.V.RAMANA,J

¶24

______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 19-06-2013 NRG

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶28

WA No.1094 OF 2012

¶29

NRG 19-06-2013

B.Subbanna v. The Commissioner Workemens Compensation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Subbanna v. The Commissioner Workemens Compensation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Annapurna, Vs The District Collector-cum-District Coordinator

Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board Vs P. Narayana

Tirumala Hills Residents Welfare Association Vs The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation

M/s Susheela Educational Society Vs The Authorised Officer

M/s. Sri Balaji Associates Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sri Rama Raw and Boiled Rice Mill Vs The Goverment of Andhra Pradesh