ORDER A.S. Bopanna , J.—The applicant is before this Court in this application filed under Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956. The prayer in the application is to direct the first respondent viz., Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Registrar General of Money Lenders to surrender the original Dhana Chakra deposit receipts to the Official Liquidator. A prayer is also made in the application to direct the first respondent to pay the damages to the Official Liquidator for unauthorisedly keeping the original Dhana Chakra deposit receipts of the company from the date of winding up i.e., 13.03.2002. M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank with whom the amount had been deposited under the Dhana Chakra deposit scheme has been impleaded as the third respondent. The respondents have filed their objection statement and denied the contention put forth in the application. During the pendency of the instant application, the first respondent has made over the original deposit receipts regarding which the first prayer is made in the instant application, Therefore, insofar as the first prayer, the application has become infructuous. 2. Notwithstanding the said position, the applicant/Official Liquidator has subsequently filed a memo contending that the third respondent-bank should be directed to pay the interest on the said deposit from the date of the maturity of the deposits as indicated in Annexure-A to the application. In response to the said memo, the third respondent-bank have filed their objection statement contending that they are not liable to pay the interest from the date of maturity since there is no provision for automatic renewal and the depositor had not sought for renewal of the deposits from the date of maturity. In that circumstance, the applicant contended that if not the third respondent, at least the first respondent and second respondents should be liable for the damages. Since the issue relating to the claim of interest subsequent to the period of maturity is sought or in the alternative, the damages have been sought, the matter requires consideration in that perspective. 3. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would strenuously contend that the money in question belonging to the company-in-liquidation had been deposited with the third respondent-bank and the certificates were obtained in the name of the second respondent and was lodged with the first respondent as a compliance for obtaining the Money Lenders licence in favour of the company-in-liquidation. 3. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator would strenuously contend that the money in question belonging to the company-in-liquidation had been deposited with the third respondent-bank and the certificates were obtained in the name of the second respondent and was lodged with the first respondent as a compliance for obtaining the Money Lenders licence in favour of the company-in-liquidation. It is therefore contended that when the deposits were in the name of the second respondent, it was incumbent on the part of the second respondent to have secured renewal of deposit on the date of maturity or seek for payment of the matured amount. It is his further contention that even otherwise, the third respondent-bank has retained the amount with it after the date of maturity and therefore, in equity at least they should be directed to pay interest for having retained and utilised the amount for their business purposes. Hence, it is contended that in any event, either the first and second respondent jointly or the third respondent would be liable to compensate the company-in-liquidation for the loss suffered. Therefore, the memo filed subsequent to the filing of the application or the second prayer made in the application is liable to be accepted. 4. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would contend that the company-in-liquidation was ordered to be wound up on 13.03.2002 and the fixed deposits had matured nearly a year prior to the said date on 14.03.2001 being the last of date of maturity and all other deposits matured prior to the said date as indicated in the statement produced by the applicant as at Annexure-A. In such circumstance, when the said deposits were obtained nominally in the name of the second respondent for the legal compliance for securing Money Lenders licence it was incumbent on the licence-holder to approach the second respondent and seek for renewal of licence or in the alternative for requesting return of the receipts for securing payment of the amount from the bank for the purpose of payment to the company-in-liquidation. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in any event cannot be liable for the actions which have taken place much prior to the date of the winding up order. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in any event cannot be liable for the actions which have taken place much prior to the date of the winding up order. Hence, it is contended that once the available fixed deposit receipts have been handed over to the Official Liquidator during the pendency of the instant proceedings, nothing more requires to be done by respondents No. 1 and 2 and the application has become infructuous against them. 5. Learned counsel for the third respondent-bank would contend that from the perusal of the receipts itself, it is noticed that the depositor is none other than the respondent No. 2 and the bank has issued receipts in favour of the second respondent and terms of the same would bind only respondents No. 2 and 3 as a matter of contract and there being nothing on record indicated that the deposits receipts have been issued in favour of the company-in-liquidation, the application itself is not maintainable as against them. However, being a conscious banker and in view of the request made by the second respondent who was the deposit certificate-holder, the amount has been returned and the maturity amount alone is to be returned as per the contract and therefore, there can be no further liability against the third respondent. Hence, it is contended that when the applicant has not even made a prayer in the application against the third respondent, the relief sought for in the memo cannot be granted and the same is liable to be rejected. 6. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties and having noticed that the first prayer for return of the original deposit receipts to the Official Liquidator has rendered itself infructuous and also having noticed that the amount indicated as the face value of the deposits amounting to a sum of Rs. 6,53,873/- has already been paid by the third respondent-bank on presentation of the original receipts by the second respondent, the question that remains for consideration in the instant application is as to whether respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally or the third respondent can be made liable either for damages or for payment of interest as sought for by the applicant. 7. 7. In that regard, a perusal of Annexure-'A' indicating the details of the deposits made and the different dates of maturity would make it clear that the date of deposits is in the year 1997-98 and the relevant maturity period is during the year 2000-01. To be precise, the last of the deposit was to mature on 15.03.2001, which becomes the relevant date for our purpose. In this regard, what is to be noticed is that the said deposit receipts are not issued in the name of the company-in-liquidation, but in the name of the second respondent. However there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the money for the purpose of deposit has been kept with the third respondent-bank by the company-in-liquidation. The deposit receipts were lodged with the second respondent as a compliance of the requirement for the purpose of issue of Money Lenders licence. In that circumstance, for the company-in-liquidation to carry on its business of money lending, licence should have been in force till the date of winding up. If that be the position, the company-in-liquidation was required to have the money lending licence in force till 13.03.2002, unless the company-in-liquidation had made any positive efforts to see that the company does not require the money lending licence as the activities had come to a standstill. 8. Be that as it may, in the instant case, as already noticed, the last of the deposit had matured on 15.03.2001 which was about one year prior to the date of winding up order. If that be the position, the persons who were in-charge of the affairs of the company and the company being a going concern as on the said date were required either to have the fixed deposits renewed by making necessary efforts with the third respondent-bank or by securing the second respondent to do so by communicating with the second respondent. It is necessary to mention that the need for second respondent to look into the fixed deposits receipts would arise only if the company-in-liquidation through the persons in-charge of the affairs had approached the second respondent in that regard. It is necessary to mention that the need for second respondent to look into the fixed deposits receipts would arise only if the company-in-liquidation through the persons in-charge of the affairs had approached the second respondent in that regard. Therefore, first or the second respondent cannot be held liable for negligence as on the date of maturity, more particularly in a circumstance when the second respondent has acted immediately on receiving the communication from the Official Liquidator pursuant to the statement of affairs which had been filed by the Directors and when the second respondent had addressed a letter dated 27.07.2009 seeking for return of the certificates. 9. Similarly, insofar as the third respondent is concerned, the deposit receipts were issued in favour of the second respondent and the deposit receipts clearly indicates that the amount deposited would not accrue interest from the date of the maturity and there was no contract of automatic renewal. If that be the position, the question of the bank granting interest on the said amount subsequent to the date of maturity would not arise since it is a matter of contract between the depositor and the bank. 10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that in equity, the third respondent-bank should be directed to pay interest, in my view, in the instant application, no such case has been made out against the third respondent since the responsibility of the third respondent to discharge the receipt would arise only on presentation of the original receipt to the bank. In the instant case, the second respondent communicated to the third respondent bank with regard to payment of the amount due to the said respondent. The third respondent has immediately paid the principal amount which was liable to be paid and since there was no order for renewal, the interest subsequent to maturity had not been paid. In that view of the matter, considering that the deposits had matured much prior to the date of winding up, it is the persons who were in-charge of the company as on that day who need to explain if there was any lapse in that regard and the respondents cannot be held liable. Hence, the first prayer already having satisfied by the return of the documents, the second prayer cannot be granted for the reasons stated above. 11. Hence, the first prayer already having satisfied by the return of the documents, the second prayer cannot be granted for the reasons stated above. 11. Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.