ORDER 20.6.2006 — Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has taken a loan from the State of Bank of India, Commercial Branch, IDCOL House, Unit-II, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar and has repaid some amount against the said loan. For non-payment of the balance dues of the loan a proceeding was initiated by the Bank-Opp.party No.1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack and now the same is pending. In the mean time, the petitioner has tried to liquidate the Bank’s dues by offering One Time Settlement. Unfortunately, the OTS offered by the Bank failed in June 2004. In an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., OJC No.6002 of 2002 an interim order had been passed directing the petitioner to re-pay the entire outstanding loan amount, by depositing a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- by the end of October, 2005 and the balance amount by the end of December, 2005. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not repay the said amount. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the month of March 2006. On our request, learned counsel for the Bank has submitted a calculation sheet indicating the amount which is payable by the petitioner. From the said calculation sheet it appears that the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 14,95,040/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this time the petitioner will pay the outstanding loan amount as demanded by the State Bank of India. But, its only objection is that from the said calculation sheet it appears that interest has been calculated @ 10.25% p.a., i.e., Prime lending rate from 22.06.2004 to 31.05.2006. He further submits that the said calcu¬lation of interest is slightly higher. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had the petitioner made the payment pursuant to the interim order dated 7.7.2005, the Bank’s claim for interest from 22.6.2004 would not have arisen. Now that it has failed to carry out the said order, it may not be penalized by requiring payment of interest demanded by the Bank. Learned counsel for the Bank strenuously opposed the said prayer and submitted that the Bank is a financial institution and on the matter of interest there should not be any deviation on the basis of submission made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Bank strenuously opposed the said prayer and submitted that the Bank is a financial institution and on the matter of interest there should not be any deviation on the basis of submission made by the petitioner. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that there is some merit on the submissions made by the petitioner and this Court should see that the industry survives when it is undergoing a financial crunch, and the Court may grant some relief to the petitioner so far as interest is concerned. This Court finds that as per the calculation sheet of the Bank, the calculated interest amount is Rs.3,23,209/-. This Court, by balancing equity between the parties, is of the opinion that the petitioner should be asked to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) towards interest. So the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.14,71,831 (Rupees fourteen lakhs seventy one thousand eight hundred thirty one). Such pay¬ment shall be paid by the petitioner by 31st July, 2006. In the event, the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount within 31st July 2006, the Bank is at liberty to proceed with the proceeding pending before the D.R.T. If the payment is made within the aforesaid period, the proceeding pending before the D.R.T. shall be dropped and “no dues certificate” shall be accordingly issued to the petitioner. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. Misc. Case No.3980 of 2006 In view of the order passed today in W.P.(C) No.4597 of 2006, no order need be passed in this case. The Misc. Case is disposed of. Petition disposed of.