- (1.) On 18th February, 1999 while dismissing the Appellant's application for restoration of the Appeal and for recalling the Order dated 22nd December 1992, the Division Bench Directed that the amount of Rs. 12,35,577/- stated to be lying in a Fixed deposit with Punjab National Bank, 135, Biplabi Rash Behari Bose Avenue Branch, Calcutta be disbursed to the Respondent No. 1 along with interest accrued thereon upto date. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid Order that the present application has been filed by Respondent No. 1 for directions upon the Punjab National Bank to disburse the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,35,577/- along with interest accrued uptill date.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are that the respondent No. 1 Moni Freeze Private Ltd. had filed a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter-alia for reliefs regarding the export of frozen frog legs. The said application was allowed by a judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 11th April, 1988 permitting the export in favour of Respondent No. 1-writ petitioner. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench on 23rd December, 1988 passed an interim order permitting the export of the frog legs but directing that the sale proceeds shall be deposited by the State Trading Corporation in a fixed deposit in its own name in the aforesaid branch of Punjab National Bank for a period of 91 days. It was in compliance with the aforesaid Order dated 23.12.88 that the amount of Rs. 12,35,577/- was deposited with the aforesaid Bank for 91 days. This amount was deposited by the State Trading Corporation on 8th May 1989. The deposit of 91 days was to mature on 7th August 1989. It is the admitted case of the parties before us that admittedly after 7th August, 1989, when the term of 91 days was over, same not renewed by anyone and that ever since then the money has been lying with the Bank. Neither the S.T.C. demanded the money from the Bank on the date of maturity, i.e. 7th August, 1989 or at any time there after, nor did the Respondent no. 1 make any efforts in this direction until recently, as noticed hereinbelow.
(3.) In the meantime on 22nd December, 1992 the Appeal filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench. Even after the dismissal of the Appeal neither the S.T.C. nor the writ Petitioner- Respondent No. 1 took any steps either for return of the money or for renewing the Fixed Deposit. It appears that it was only after 18th February, 1999 when the appellant's application for restoration was dismissed by the Division Bench and the Division Bench ordered the return of the money to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 with interest accrued uptill date, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 started taking steps in the direction of recovering the aforesaid amount.;