JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is barred by 71 days. Learned counsel for appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the special appeal, wherein it is stated in para 2 that "The delay in filing appeal was caused mainly due to administrative reasons." Thereafter, it is mentioned that Bank had to take approval for filing the appeal from the competent authorities functioning at Mumbai. The identification of the Counsel to represent the appellant and the terms of engagement of the Counsel had also to be approved by the competent authorities of the Bank. 3. The impugned Order of the learned Single Bench was passed on 14.05.2010 and the last date of filing the appeal was 14.07.2010. The appeal was filed on 23.09.2010. The appellant was required to explain each day's delay in filing the special appeal. Nothing has been mentioned specifically about the period from 14.07.2010 to 23.09.2010. The so-called reason that approval for filing the appeal was to be taken from authority sitting at Mumbai cannot be said to be cogent or satisfactory reason for 71 days delay. The same could have been taken through electronic media like fax, message etc. The reasons assigned are not satisfactory. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that appellant has not explained the delay in filing the special appeal properly so as to condone it. Therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed. 4. Apart from above, we have also examined the merits of the case. 5. The learned Single Judge has given direction to appellant-Bank to pay interest @ 8.25% p.a. on the principal sum, which, admittedly, remained in deposit with the appellant-Bank. The learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for fixing the rate of interest also. Operative part of the impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:- "Question arises as to what should be the rate of interest or the compensation which the applicant is entitled for. Certain print outs taken from websites have been produced for perusal including news at http://www.the hindu business line.com flashed on 7.1.2007. which clearly shows that State Bank of India has increased rate on domestic term deposits of Rs. 15 lakh & above but less than Rs. Certain print outs taken from websites have been produced for perusal including news at http://www.the hindu business line.com flashed on 7.1.2007. which clearly shows that State Bank of India has increased rate on domestic term deposits of Rs. 15 lakh & above but less than Rs. One Crore with a maturity of one year & above to 8.25%, effective from January 8, and the rates for mid-size deposits range from 7.75% to 8.25% across various maturities. At the same time, the IDBI floats tax saving fixed deposit on 02/08/2006, as per The Economic Times, rate of interest offered on 5-year deposit would be 8.5% while IDBI also launched 5-year IDBI Suvidha Tax-Saving Fixed Deposit scheme with effective yields around 12%, w.e.f. August 4,2006. However, as published on Indian Bank's Association website, prime lending rates for public sector banks, as regards IDBI as on 01.07.2009, was 12.75%. Taking note of factors (supra), this Court considers it appropriate to hold that that present applicant is entitled for a reasonable, compensation viz. to pay interest @ 8.25% per annum on the amount which indisputably was lying in fixed deposits with respondent-IDBI from the date of its deposit till its refund through banker's cheque dated 12.02.2007. Consequently, misc. application is allowed. Respondent-IDBI-is directed to pay interest @8.25% p.a. on the principal sum of auction purchase price to the tune of Rs. 2,30,65,000/- ( Rs. Two Crores, Thirty lacs. Sixty five thousand) from the date it was deposited with IDBI till its refund through pay Order/cheque dated 12.02.2007. Compliance of this Order be made within two months from today failing which the interest (supra) shall be realised @12% p.a. instead of 8.25%. No Order as to costs." 6. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the special appeal also. 7. Consequently, the special appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits.Appeal Dismissed. *******