C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the parties regarding interim relief. lt is an admitted fact after contest, the Board of Nominee passed an award on March 26,1990 and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 4,41,471/00 ps. with 18% interest from the date of the suit. It is also an admitted fact that an appeal was filed by the respondent against that award which was compromised before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is on record at Annexure-C. Looking to that order, it clearly appears that the present respondent admitted his liability to the tune of Rs. 4,41,471/00 ps. The Tribunal/therefore, held that the petitioner-Bank is entitled to Rs. 4,41,471/00 ps. the amount for which an award was passed by the Board of Nominee. The Tribunal, however, modified the award and held that the respondent was liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% instead of 18% as directed by the Board of Nominee. It also held that such interest was required to be paid on the principal amount (Rs. 3,00,000/-) and not on the decretal amount (Rs. 4,41,471/- ). The mode of payment was also prescribed by the Tribunal. It is undisputed fact that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent approached this court by filing Special Civil Application No, 2811 of 1991 which came up before S. D. Shah, J and my learned brother disposed of the said petition by on order dt. 6th May 1992. Paras 5 and 6 of the said order read as under,"5. It is accordingly directed that over and above the amount of Rs. 75. 000/- the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner in monthly instalment of Rs. 10,000/- payable on or before 10th of very calender month starting from 1st may, 1992. The petitioner shall file undertaking before this court that he shall pay said amount on or before 10th of every calender month and on his failure to pay any single instalment full amount shall be recovered by the respondent in accordance with law. On such undertaking being filed it is directed that the respondent shall accept the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards monthly instalment every month and till then respondent shall not execute the recovery certificate. 6. On such undertaking being filed it is directed that the respondent shall accept the amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards monthly instalment every month and till then respondent shall not execute the recovery certificate. 6. The aforesaid undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner in this court by 7th may, 1992. "looking to the extracted portion of the order passed by this court, it is clear that this court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs 10,000/- per month on or before 10th of every calender month starting from 1st May 1992. An undertaking was also filed to that by the respondent. ( 2 ) IT appears that the respondent then filed a Lavad Case No. 1189 of 1993, inter alia, contending that the petitioner-Bank was not entitled to get interest and there was no corresponding liability on the present respondent to pay interest. Hence, that amount could not have been claimed by the Bank. It was also disputed that surcharge which was sought to be collected from the respondent was also contrary to law and could not be collected. In that Lavad Case, the Board of Nominee without issuing notice to the petitioner-Bank and without affording opportunity of hearing, granted ex-pane ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioner-Bank from implementing and executing award passed by the Board of Nominee on merits and confirmed and modified by the Tribunal with the consent of parties and also confirmed by this court. A condition was imposed by the board of Nominee that the respondent-plaintiff had to pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- on or before July 27, 1993. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition. I am really surprised to note that according to the learned counsel for the respondent, at the time when the order was passed by the Board of Nominee, his attention was drawn to the order passed by this court, and in spite of that order and undertaking filed by the present respondent in this court, the Board of Nominee granted ad-interim relief and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/ -. No doubt, subsequently, that order was modified and the amount was raised from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/ -. 7,000/ -. No doubt, subsequently, that order was modified and the amount was raised from Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 10,000/ -. The fact, however, remains that initially in spite of the order passed by this court, ad-interim relief was granted by the Board of Nominee directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- only. I am constrained to observe that the Board of Nominee ought not to have granted relief in view of the order passed by this court in Special Civil Application No. 2811 of 1991, and that too, ex-parte without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording opportunity of hearing to the Bank. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended that so far as interest is concerned, it could not have been recovered from him and to that extent, the order passed by the Board of Nominee, Tribunal as well as by this court is unlawful aad without jurisdiction. Similarly, no surcharge could have been levied. In my opinion, the Board of nominee could not and should not have granted interim order in view of the fact that the order passed by the Board of Nominee was confirmed by the Tribunal as well as by this court. Even if there is subsequent development or some letters on which reliance is placed, said to have been written in 1983 or 1985 which could have some bearing, unless and until a finding is arrived at, no interim relief can be granted on that basis. It amounts to ignoring the order passed by this court. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank that the so called letters are concocted and got up and are not exhibited. Without expressing any opinion, however, on the merits of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that no ad-interim relief could have been granted by the Board of Nominee in view of the fact that after contest between the parties, an award came to be passed by the competent court, which was confirmed in appeal. Again, there was a compromise in which the respondent admitted the claim if the petitioner for Rs. 4,41,471/ -. He also admitted to pay that amount alongwith the interest on the principal amount at the rate of 15% and the said order is confirmed by this court. Again, there was a compromise in which the respondent admitted the claim if the petitioner for Rs. 4,41,471/ -. He also admitted to pay that amount alongwith the interest on the principal amount at the rate of 15% and the said order is confirmed by this court. It is not the case of the respondent himself that he has paid Rs. 4,41,471/- and 15% interest on the principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as admitted by him before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I am unable to see any justifiable reason for granting ex-parte ad-interim relief in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent, no doubt, contended that the order passed by the Board of Nominee is merely ad-interim in nature. He further submitted that the present petitioner has raised objections and an appropriate order will be passed by the board of Nominee after hearing the parties. He also drew my attention to the fact that arguments are over and the order will be passed on 17th August, 1993. He added that the order passed by the Board of Nominee is subject to revision and since the statutory remedy is available, this court may not exercise extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India as ordinarily this court would not exercise jurisdiction when statutory remedy is available. ( 5 ) ORDINARILY, I would not have entertained a petition at this stage and would have directed the petitioner Bank to contest the matter before the Board of Nominee and if aggrieved, to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. But in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the order passed by this court is not complied with, I am constrained to entertain the petition at this stage. I am also constrained to observe that in spite of the direction of this court to the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month on or before 10th of every calendar month, the respondent has not complied with the said direction for the month of August, 1993. Before two days when the matter was called out for hearing, the. court specifically asked mr. Jani, learned counsel for the respondent whether the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he said that it was not paid. Before two days when the matter was called out for hearing, the. court specifically asked mr. Jani, learned counsel for the respondent whether the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he said that it was not paid. To day it is 13th August and when I put the same Question to Mr. Jani, the learned counsel stated that in view of ad-interim stay granted by the Board of Nominee, the respondent has not paid the amount. He stated that if this court directs the respondent, he has no objection to pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- without prejudice to his rights and contentions. There is no question of such direction. Direction was given by this court as early as on 6th May, 1992, i. e. before more than one year. Even an undertaking was also required to be filed by the respondent as per the order of the court and in fact, the undertaking was filed. Thus, in my opinion, there is clear non-compliance and breach of undertaking by the respondent. Hence, ex-parte ad-interim relief granted by the Board of Nominee on 9. 7. 1993 and modified thereafter is required to be vacated and is hereby vacated. I may clarify that the above observations are made only for the purpose of vacating ex-parte ad-interim relief granted by the Board of Nominee and the Board of Nominee will decide the matter strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the above observations. Direct service. .