IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review/Recall Application No. 989 of 2010 IN Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1222 of 2009. M/s Das Enterprises through its proprietor Ramesh Kumar Arora Nagar Palika Bazar, Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Tehsildar Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. 2. Kashipur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Kashipur, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. …Respondents. Mr. G.K.Verma Advocate, learned counsel for the review applicant-respondent no.2. Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date December 08, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on review application and perused the record. The review applicant has filed the review application for review of the order dated 25-10-2010 on the ground that the amount of F.D.R. i.e. Rs. 34,193-00 was adjusted by the respondent no.2 on 30-9- 2002, which has been erroneously included in the order under review. I have perused the order passed by the arbitrator. I have also perused the calculation chart filed by the respondent no. 2 as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit. In the award dated 30-9-2005, the Arbitrator has mentioned that an amount of Rs. 1,22,640/- was deposited by the petitioner with the Bank out of the amount of Rs. 3,00,353-45. The award was passed for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,77,713.45. A perusal of the calculation chart submitted by the review applicant itself goes to show that outstanding balance of Rs. 300353.45 has been shown as on 30-9-2002 and the deposited amounts have been shown date-wise from 27-10-2002 onwards upto 31-1-2004. Total amount of Rs. 1,22,640/- was deposited, which was deducted by the arbitrator. It further reveals that the amount of F.D.R. was not deducted by the arbitrator, although it was adjusted on 22-2-2005 by the respondent 2 no.2-Bank, therefore, the amount of F.D.R. is to be deducted from the amount in the Head of Paid amount since it was adjusted later-on after 31-1-2004. This ground raised by the review applicant has no force. The second ground raised is that earlier against the appellate court order, a writ petition was filed, which was dismissed, therefore, the amount of interest was wrongly reduced by this Court and the error is apparent on the face of record. I have perused the award. The Arbitrator has mentioned that the applicant Bank would be entitled to recover the interest on the awarded amount at the minimum rate of interest prevalent at the relevant time. The rate of interest was however not disclosed in the award. This Court while passing the order under review addressed itself as to what should be the reasonable minimum interest and on the basis of the Apex Court judgment in the case of C.K.Sasankan Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. [2009 (107) R.D., Page 707] directed that simple interest @ 9% per annum would be charged by the review applicant-Bank. No good ground is made out to review the order dated 25- 10-2010. Accordingly the review application No.989 of 2010 is dismissed. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP