Vikramajit Sen ( 1 ) C. A. Nos. 654-656/2002 in CP 227/2000 : by orders dated 9. 11. 2000, Honble Cyriac Joseph, J. had directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 15,56,168/- to the petitioner on or before 11th December, 2000. The question of payment of interest by the respondent was specifically left open. The deposit of Rs. 15,56,168/- has admittedly been made by the respondent, within the period allowed by the Court. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, by a detailed orders dated 6. 3. 2002, Hon ble Mukul Mudgal, J. had directed the respondents to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 15,56,168/- with effect from 17th July, 1997 till the date of payment. My learned Brother had also ordered the payment of costs which he quantified at Rs. 10,000/ -. Although, the respondent was duly represented on all hearings previous and subsequent to March 6,2000, it went unrepresented on that date. ( 3 ) WHEN the mater came up for hearing on 27. 5. 2002, learned Counsel for the respondent had stated that he was not aware of the previous orders. He sought and was allowed a week s time to either comply with the orders or seek appellate remedy. Admittedly, neither of these actions has been pursued. ( 4 ) INSTEAD of approaching the Appellate Court, the respondent has moved a number of applications in June, 2002. CA No. 654/2002 sought a re-hearing of the case. The matter has been heard in detail. Hence, this application stands disposed of. By CA No. 655/2002 the delay of sixty-two days was asked to be condoned. This also stands allowed. In CA No. 656/2002 the applicant/respondent had prayed for a stay of the operation of the order dated 6. 3. 2002. Notice was issued on this application but no stay was granted by Hon ble R. C. Jain, J. It is now rendered infructuous. CA No. 657/2002 for allowing exemption from filing certified copies is allowed subject to all just exceptions. ( 5 ) I will now revert to the merits of the issue pertaining to payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 17th July, 1997 till the date of payment. I am in respectful agreement with the orders passed on March 6, 2002. ( 5 ) I will now revert to the merits of the issue pertaining to payment of interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 17th July, 1997 till the date of payment. I am in respectful agreement with the orders passed on March 6, 2002. The first demand for repayment of 80% of the sums paid by the petitioner to the respondent was with effect from 17. 7. 1997 as per the respondent s letter dated 5. 7. 1997 in which it had adopted the stand that if the demanded sum of Rs. 2,82,489/- was not remitted to it latest by 17. 7. 1997 the contract between the parties would stand cancelled leaving the petitioner with no lien on the property in question. In this letter interest had been demanded at the rate of 24% per annum. ( 6 ) MR. Misra, learned Senior Counsel who appears for the respondent, has relied on that portion of Clause 4 (a) of the agreement which stipulates that the refund of 80% would be without interest for predicating his argument that no interest ought to have been ordered. However, this clause would not come to the rescue of the respondent in the event that it fails to refund 80% amount on the relevant date, i. e. 17. 7. 1997. The clause merely clarifies that in respect of the 80% which would become refundable, the Flat Buyer would not be entitled to claim interest for the period during which the amounts paid by the petitioners were retained or enjoyable by the respondent. It does not have prospective applicability. Mr. Misra, had indicated that although winding-up proceedings are not in the nature of recovery proceedings, the interest of justice and equity may be met if interest at a nominal rate is made payable with effect from 8. 6. 2000, which is the date of the Statutory Notice. I am, however, convinced that this would not be the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the rate of interest. It would relate back to the date on which the payment of 80% had fallen due i. e. 17. 7. 1997. I am also in view that the rate of 24% per annum is the appropriate rate to be fixed since this is the rate demanded by the respondent. It would relate back to the date on which the payment of 80% had fallen due i. e. 17. 7. 1997. I am also in view that the rate of 24% per annum is the appropriate rate to be fixed since this is the rate demanded by the respondent. ( 7 ) FOR all these reasons, having heard the matter once again, I find no occasion or justification to vary the orders dated March 6,2002. ( 8 ) THE respondent is directed to make the payment of interest on the sum of rs. 15,56,168/- at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 17. 7. 1997 till the date of payment. If the payment is not made within four weeks from today, the case be listed before the Court for further steps in the liquidation process. Application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.