JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna , J.—The appellants herein are the defendants in O.S. No. 5230/2007. The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff seeking for a judgment and decree against the defendants to recover the sum of Rs.1,03,217.50 with future interest. The Court below after considering the rival contentions has decreed the suit directing the defendants to pay the sum of Rs.67,700.50 with interest at 6% p.a. from 26.03.2004. The defendants have therefore assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. The parties would be referred to in the same rank as assigned to them before the Court below for the purpose of convenience and clarity. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The plaintiff had undertaken construction of its building and in that regard, while obtaining the approved plan from Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, they were required to submit National Saving Certificate ('NSC' for short). Accordingly, the plaintiff approached the third defendant on 26.03.1998 and purchased 11 certificates in all amounting to a sum of Rs.66,700/-. The details of the certificates have been mentioned in the plaint. As per the same, the maturity value of the said certificates when they were to mature on 26.03.2004 would be in a sum of Rs.1,34,400.50. It is in that context, the plaintiff on maturity had approached the third defendant for payment of the matured amount. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices is said to have addressed a letter to the plaintiff on 11.01.2005, wherein it has been stated that as per the Rules, there was no provision for issuing NSCs to the institutions. Hence, in that context, the defendants replied to the plaintiff stating that the maturity value cannot be paid nor can any interest be paid on the said amount. In that context, after further correspondences between the parties, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the said amount. 3. The defendants on being served with the suit summons appeared and filed their detailed written statement. The case of the defendants is that the NSCs issued to the plaintiff on 26.03.1998 is contrary to the National Savings Guidelines issued on 01.04.1995 as per which, the NSCs cannot be issued in favour of the institutions. 3. The defendants on being served with the suit summons appeared and filed their detailed written statement. The case of the defendants is that the NSCs issued to the plaintiff on 26.03.1998 is contrary to the National Savings Guidelines issued on 01.04.1995 as per which, the NSCs cannot be issued in favour of the institutions. In that context, it is contended by them that since the transaction under which the certificates were issued to the plaintiff was contrary to the Rules, the payment of maturity value or interest would not arise and the plaintiffs are entitled only for refund of the amount which had been deposited and no further amount was liable to be paid by the defendants. Hence, the sheet-anchor of the case of the defendants is the circular dated 01.04.1995 which referred to the guidelines which had been notified indicating that the NSC could not have been issued to the institutions. Based on the said defence and the other contentions which were raised in the written statement, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The Court below on taking note of the rival contentions framed as many as five issues for its consideration, which read as hereunder: 1. Whether the defendants prove that NSCs dated 26.03.1998 have been issued in the name of plaintiff, contradictory to the rules and guidelines, therefore maturity value cannot be given? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for entire maturity value of NSCs from the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 18% from the date of maturity? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants? 5. What decree or order? 5. In order to discharge the burden cast on the parties, the Officer of the plaintiff-Society was examined as P.W. 1 and the documents at Exhs. P1 to P15 were relied upon. The Officer of the defendants was examined as D.W. 1 and the document at Ex. D1 was relied upon. The Court below on considering the evidence available before it has arrived at the conclusion that the material issues are to be held in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to pay the maturity value excluding principal amount with 6% interest. 6. The Court below on considering the evidence available before it has arrived at the conclusion that the material issues are to be held in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the Court below decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to pay the maturity value excluding principal amount with 6% interest. 6. Sri Pramod, learned counsel for the defendants while assailing the judgment would contend that the Court below was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that Issue No. 1 is to be held in negative. Irrespective of the oral evidence, the document which was available at Ex. D1 was sufficient to hold that the guidelines did not provide for issuing NSC in favour of the institution. When that be the position, even if there was certain mistake committed by certain Officers of the defendants, the same cannot be held against the defendants insofar as the payment of the maturity value and interest. It is his contention that at best, the plaintiff would have been entitled only to the amount which they had invested with the defendants and that amount in any event had been repaid by the defendants and therefore, no further claim could have been made by filing the suit. It is therefore contended that the Court below was not justified in decreeing the suit for the maturity value along with the interest. Hence, it is contended that the spirit of judgment and decree would be to the effect that a direction is issued to the defendants to act in contravention to the Regulations which has been in force and therefore, such decree cannot be enforced. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff however seeks to sustain the judgment passed by the Court below. It is his case that the Court below, after taking note of the evidence which was available on record and also taking note of the fact that the defendants without raising any objection had received the amount as far back as on 26.03.1998 and had retained the same till the period of maturity during the year 2004, was justified in holding that the maturity value has to be paid. Further, the Court below was also justified in granting interest at 6% since the maturity value had been held back by the defendants even after the maturity period was completed. Further, the Court below was also justified in granting interest at 6% since the maturity value had been held back by the defendants even after the maturity period was completed. Therefore, it is his case that the Court below while looking into the evidence available on record was justified in taking note of the fact that the plaintiff was also a institution which was dealing with the public money and when they had invested public fund in such scheme, they cannot be put to loss. Hence, the judgment passed by the Court below is sustainable and the same does not call for interference. 8. In the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the judgment of the Court below should be interfered merely because there was a guideline as indicated by the correspondence dated 09.03.1995 marked as Ex. D1 in the suit. 9. In order to consider this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with regard the manner of the investments made by the plaintiff and the quantum of amount as also with regard to different certificates since insofar as the deposit of the sum of Rs.66,700/- under 11 NSCs, the same is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, the only question for consideration herein is as to whether the defendants in the facts and circumstances of the instant case were justified in denying the benefit of the maturity value under the said certificates to the plaintiff. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, as already noticed, the sheet-anchor of the case of the defendants is the D.O. letter which is produced and marked as Ex. D1. It is no doubt true that a perusal of the said document would indicate that certain changes have been made by the Ministry of Finance with regard to the investment by institutions in the Post Office Time Deposit, Kisan Vikas Patra and the National Savings Certificate (VIII Issue). It is also indicated therein that the said changes would come into effect from 01.04.1995. The same indicates that a Gazette notification and the Rules in that regard would also be framed. It is also indicated therein that the said changes would come into effect from 01.04.1995. The same indicates that a Gazette notification and the Rules in that regard would also be framed. In that view, what is to be noticed is that in the instant case, the NSCs issued to the plaintiff is on 26.03.1998 subsequent to the date on which the said changes have been brought about. The issue however is as to whether merely because of the said changes, the benefit should be denied to the plaintiff as already noticed. 10. While considering this aspect of the matter, what cannot also be lost sight is that the plaintiff had sought for the issue of NSCs as they found the same to be a requirement for compliance to obtain a sanctioned plan for putting up the construction and it was not for the purpose of making an investment and not for earning higher value. Therefore, in such circumstance, the NSCs obtained are itself for compliance in that regard and at that stage, if in fact, the NSCs were not to be issued in view of the change in the guidelines dated 01.04.1995, it was for the defendants to advise the plaintiff that the amount cannot be received by them for the purpose of issue of the certificates. In the instant case, the evidence available on record does not disclose that such indication had been made to the plaintiff at that stage. The very fact that the certificates have been issued would disclose that the defendants without demur have accepted the amount and during the entire period till the date of maturity of the certificates on 26.03.2004, no correspondence whatsoever has been addressed by the defendants to the plaintiff in that regard to clarify the position that in view of the changed guidelines, the amount cannot be retained by them and the same is to be returned. In that context, it is to be noticed that only after the NSCs had matured on 26.03.2004 and when the plaintiff had approached the defendants for realisation of the said amount, the position has been noticed by the defendants and maturity value was refused. However, the principal amount was offered to be paid by the defendants and a sum of Rs.67,700/- has been subsequently paid by them. However, the principal amount was offered to be paid by the defendants and a sum of Rs.67,700/- has been subsequently paid by them. The question is with regard to the maturity value i.e., total amount of Rs.1,34,000/- which would constitute principal amount as well. It is in that context, the plaintiff had claimed the maturity portion of the amount with interest as indicated in their plaint. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.67,700.50 with interest calculated from 26.03.2004 to 25.10.2006 i.e., the date of filing of the suit was claimed along with the notice charges. 11. The facts in the instant case would clearly disclose that the defendants though had received the amount contrary to the guidelines had retained the amount from 26.03.1998 till 26.03.2004. The defendants having retained the said amount and having taken the benefit of the same, in the facts and circumstances of the case could not have denied the benefit to the plaintiff. 12. The learned counsel for the defendants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, AIR 1996 SC 3285 to contend that the Courts cannot issue any direction to the authorities to act contrary to the guidelines. I have perused the decision cited. It is to be noticed that in the said facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the direction which had been issued by the High Court to the authorities to consider the application for refund had arrived at the conclusion that the said direction issued was contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the said case, the respondents therein who had imported goods had thereafter made an application seeking refund of the amount. In such circumstance, since the Rules provides that such application cannot be made, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court could not have directed consideration of such application while exercising its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has set aside the same. But in the present facts, the relief sought is not in that direction. 13. But in the present facts, the relief sought is not in that direction. 13. In the instant case, if the party had approached the Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to issue NSCs contrary to the guidelines of the society, the party seeking such direction being an institution and if a direction was issued, the same would be contrary to law and would have been guided by the decision referred to above. However, in the instant case, as already noticed, the defendants had received the amount from the plaintiff as far back as in the year 1998 and had issued certificates and throughout the validity of the certificates they had not intimated the plaintiff with regard to existence of the Rules. It is only when the plaintiff sought for payment of the amount, the defendants sought to urge such contention. When the amount had been received and has been utilised by the defendants naturally while the maturity period was over, the said amount was to be paid to the plaintiff since it is their money which had been retained by the defendants and had been utilised by them. Therefore, to the extent of the Court below directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.67,700.50 to the plaintiff, the same cannot be found fault with. 14. The next question which would also arise for consideration is as to whether the Court below was justified in granting interest at 6% p.a. On this aspect also, it is to be noticed that in a position where the defendants had received the amount, retained the same and had not refunded the amount with maturity value on 26.03.2004, the dispute relating to the maturity amount had continued and during the said period, the said amount was available with the defendants. Hence, ultimately, when the Court below has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the said amount, the Court below was also justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said amount at 6% which is the minimum interest which has been granted by the Court below. Therefore, even that aspect of the matter does not call for interference. Therefore, even that aspect of the matter does not call for interference. Hence, having considered these aspects of the matter and having noticed the reasoning adopted by the Court below, I am of the considered opinion that the same does not call for interference and the point which has been raised for consideration herein is to be answered against the appellants-defendants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.