F.A.O. No.478 of 2009 No.6 of 2013 Misc. Case No.905 of 2011 03.11.2015 Heard Mr.S.Lal, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Mr.R.Sahoo, learned c ounsel for opposite party No.3-United Bank of India, Main Branch, Nayasarak, Cuttack. 2. Pursuant to direction dated 30.10.2015 of this Court Mr.Bijay Bhusan Sarangi, Chief Ma nager & Authorized Officer, United Bank of India, Cuttack, Main Branch, Nayararak, Cuttack is present in Court and files Additional Affidavit. 3. This application has been filed seeking for a direction to opposite party No.3, i.e., United Bank of India, Main Branch, Nayasarak, Cuttack to pay appropriate rate of interest on t he amount of Rs.65.00 lakh, which was deposited before the Registrar (Judicial) pursuant to di rection of this Court dated 23.12.2009 passed in FAO No.479 of 2009 heard analogous with this appeal and further to direct the Registrar(Judicial) to disburse the amount deducted towards T DS by the opposite party No.3 and the pay interest thereon. 4. Mr.Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present appeal along with FAO No.479 of 2009 were filed against order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in I.A. Nos. 598 and 599 of 2009 arising out of C.S. No .595 of 2009 refusing to grant injunction for encashment of bank guarantee issued by the appel lants- M/s Santuka Agencies and M/s Santuka Associates Private Limited. During pendency of the appeals, the respondent No.1-Amira Foods India Limited (in both the appeals) made an attempt to encash the said bank guarantees on the pretext that the appellant (in both the appeals) had defaulted in making the payment towards credit sales. Considering the grievance of the partie s, this Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 passed in FAO No.479 of 2009 (heard analogous with t his appeal) directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.80.00 lakh keeping in view two bank guarantees issued by the appellant amounting Rs.65.00 lakh and Rs.15.00 lakh by M/s Santuka A gencies (in FAO No.479 of 2009) in lieu of encashment of both the bank guarantees. The appella nt in obedience to the said direction had deposited the said amount of Rs.80.00 lakh before th e Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by Pay Orders bearing Nos.010735 & 010736 (A/c-Santuka As sociates Pvt. Ltd.) for Rs.35.00 lakh and Rs.15.00 lakh respectively dated 11.01.2010 drawn on Indus Ind Bank, Cuttack in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and Rs.30.00 lakh vide Pay Order bearing No.010905 dated 04.02.2010 drawn on Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Cuttack (A/c Santuka Associates Pvt. Ltd.) in favour of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 5. Consequent upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Registrar (Judicial) had deposite d the sums of Rs.30.00 lakh and Rs.35.00 lakh in two separate Fixed Deposits in the United Ban k of India, for a period of six months on 10.04.2010. The prevailing rate of interest at the r elevant period was 5.25% per annum for the said fix deposits. Subsequently, a settlement was a rrived between the parties on 04.11.2011. Accordingly, this Court directed for release of the entire proceeds of Rs.65.00 lakh along with accrued interest in favour of the petitioner. Purs uant to the aforesaid direction, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court directed opposite part y No.3-UBI for release of the amount placed in the Fixed Deposits with up to date interest in favour of the petitioner. On receipt of the direction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court op posite party No.3 released the fixed deposits amount in favour of the petitioner vide two Pay Orders dated 25.11.2011 for Rs.31,87,975.79 and Rs.37,19,228.34 being the principal amount of Rs.30.00 lakh and Rs.35.00 lakh respectively and Rs.1,87,975.79 and Rs.2,19,228.34 total amoun ting Rs.4,07,204.13 towards interest on the deposit of Rs.65.00 lakh for a period of one year eight months and fifteen days. Mr. Lal submits that though the rate of interest prevailing the n was 5.25% per annum, but while releasing the amount the petitioner was paid a lesser rate of interest. Furthermore, Mr.Lal also prays for release of the TDS amount deducted by the Bank a nd kept in the Account of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in favour of the petitioner as h e is not liable for any deduction towards TDS. 6. Pursuant to the notice, the Branch Manager of UBI, Main Branch, Nayasarak, Cuttack (O. P. No.3) appeared through his Counsel, Mr.R.Sahoo and associates and filed objection stating i nter alia that pursuant to direction of this Court, Registrar (Judicial) has deposited the amo unt on 10.04.2010 for a period of six months having interest at the rate of 5.25% per annum an d the same was to mature on 10.10.2010, but the same could not be renewed automatically becaus e of the policy decision of the Bank. It is submitted by Mr.Sahoo that automatic renewal of te rm deposit on maturity of Fixed Deposit is an additional facility and is offered to the custom er. The same can only be given effect to after receiving written request of the customer /depo sitor who authorizes the Bank to do so. Moreover, drawing attention to the Circular dated 30th October, 2009 notified by the opposite party No.3-Bank regarding automatic renewal of term de posit on maturity, wherein, it is stated as hereunder:- Henceforth, branches at the time of opening Term Deposit account shall obtain from the depositor a mandate, if so intended, authorizing the Bank to renew the Term Deposit account(s ) for equivalent period on maturity. In case of existing term deposit accounts, auto renewal shall be effected only against specific written request of the customer. The Policy Guidelines of the opposite party No.3-Bank applicable to the term deposit a ccounts further clarifies in clause-d that the facility of auto renewal will not be available to term deposit opened as per direction of court/claim Tribunals. Thus, it is the submission o f Mr.Sahoo that the fixed deposit made by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court could not be renewed as there was not written instruction from the said authority as on the date of maturit y. Accordingly, the interest @ 4% per annum as was prevailing for savings bank deposit at the relevant time, was given to the appellant on the deposits. 7. During course of hearing, Mr.Lal submitted a calculation sheet which disclosed that fo r the first six months, interest at the rate of 5.30% was allowed on the deposits in question and for the interim period (10.10.2010 to 13.07.2011) interest at the rate of 2.91% was allowe d. Furthermore, for the period from 14.07.2011 to 25.11.2011 as against those fixed deposits i nterest at the rate of 5.33% was allowed and released in favour of the appellant. Thus, the pl ea of the opposite party No.3-Bank to the effect that the fixed deposits cannot be renewed wit hout written instruction of the depositor, especially when the same is made pursuant to the or der of the Court /Claims Tribunals is not acceptable. 8. A copy of such calculation sheet was served on Mr.Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party No.3. Accordingly, the Branch Manager filed the Additional Affidavit stating inter alia that in the month of September, 2011, the Director of the appellant-agency, Mr.Vikash Kumar Sa ntuka had met the Bank authorities and enquired about the rate of interest awarded in respect of the two term deposit accounts and on his instruction only, the fixed deposits were renewed with effect from 14.07.2011. However, no document to that effect could be produced by the oppo site party No.3-Bank. Mr. Sarangi, the Chief Manager & Authorized Officer of the opposite part y No.3-Bank, who is present in person pursuant to direction of this Court, submits that he was not in the branch at the relevant time and taking instruction from the then Branch Manager, M r.Purna Chandra Pradhan, he files the present additional affidavit. He also submits that the p olicy of the Bank is being made in consonance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India . It is his submission that automatic renewal is only possible on the written instruction of a depositor/customer. 9. Taking into consideration the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds that a lthough Mr.Sarangi, the Chief Manager and the Authorized Officer of the opposite party No.3-Ba nk as well as his Counsel, Mr.Sahoo emphatically submit that without written consent of a depo sitor, the fixed deposit cannot automatically be renewed, but as it appears in the instant cas e, it has been renewed with effect from 14.07.2011 till the date of payment without any such w ritten instruction by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, who was the depositor of the sai d fixed deposits and for that matter on the alleged oral instructions of Mr. Vikash Kumar Sant uka, who is stated to be the Director of the appellant-agency the fixed deposits could not hav e been renewed. Hence, the averments made on oath by Mr.Sarangi, the Chief Manager and the Aut horized Officer of the opposite party No.3-Bank appears to be not correct and cannot be accept ed. It can be safely presumed that the opposite party No.3-Bank has committed an error in calc ulating the interest on fixed deposits made by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court pursuant to direction of this Court. Law is no more res integra that direction can be issued to rectif y an error in arithmetical calculation in a disposed of matter in exercise of power under Sect ion 151, CPC for the ends of justice. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to prevail ing rate of interest on the fixed deposits for the period from 10.10.2010 till 13.07.2011. He is also entitled to the amount deducted towards TDS on such deposits kept in a separate accoun t by the Registrar (Judicial) as pointed out by Mr.Sarangi, the Chief Manager and the Authoriz ed Officer of the opposite party No.3-Bank. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite party No.3-Bank to recalculate and pay the appellant/petitioner interest on the fixed deposits for the period from 10.10.2010 to 13.07.2011 at the rate prevailing then deducting the amount (int erest) he has already received. Further, the opposite party No.3-bank is directed to pay inter est at the rate prevailing then (on term deposit) on the un-paid amount from 10.10.2010 till t he date of payment. It is further directed that the TDS amount along with interest accrued the reon kept in separate interest bearing account in the name of Registrar (Judicial) shall also be paid to the appellant/petitioner within a period of ten days as undertaken by Mr.Sarangi, t he Chief Manager and the Authorized Officer of the opposite party No.3-Bank. 11. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the Misc. Case stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application. .. K.R. Mohapatra, J. 2