JUDGMENT: This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the decree of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama refusing interest on the sum of Rs.11,55,433.42 which the learned Judge ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs. 2. The facts, which are material for deciding this appeal are mostly not in dispute or cannot be disputed. 3. There was Special Civil Suit No.157/1982 between the brothers and daughters of Narhari Narvekar. The defendants in that suit, are the plaintiffs in the present suit. In that suit, a receiver was appointed. Initially, Advocate Shirsat was appointed as receiver. Thereafter, Advocate Surendra Dessai was appointed in his place and lastly, Shri Sandesh Naik was appointed as receiver. These receivers maintained a current account with the defendant State Bank of India in which a sum of Rs.11,55,453.42 was lying. The parties filed consent terms in the said suit and the suit was decreed in accordance with those consent terms. The plaintiffs in the present suit, who were the defendants in Special Civil Suit No.157/1982 were to get 58 % of the amount in deposit. Clause 3(c), 4 and 5 of the consent terms read as under: “3(c) It is further clarified that in Misc. Civil Appln. No. 110/82 in Special Civil Suit No. 157/82, the defendants as per the Court's suggestion offered to deposit in the bank to the order of the Court, the amount corresponding to 42%, with a clarification that the said figures are not final and they are subject to payment of tax and other liabilities and also that the figures are approximate as accounts were not finalised. The deposit aforesaid was permitted to be done in Bank of India Margao Branch on short term fixed deposits by order dated 25/01/1983. At that time the defendants had not appropriated nor were they paid any amount towards their share. Hence the amount deposited in the bank with its further proceeds is to be paid being 42% to the plaintiffs and 58% to the defendants in the same manner as shown in clause 5 of these consent terms. 4. As to the present Receiver Shri Sandesh Naik, appointed by the order dated 6/5/1998, the Receiver be and is hereby discharged forthwith without passing accounts, and informed accordingly. 4. As to the present Receiver Shri Sandesh Naik, appointed by the order dated 6/5/1998, the Receiver be and is hereby discharged forthwith without passing accounts, and informed accordingly. (i) The Receiver was appointed in respect of the mines (i)”Pandava Xetaviola Soddo” or “Vozro Soddo”, (ii) “Mainantli Murdi”, (iii)”Mata Nacional Telsai”, (iv) “Palitembo E. Earqueriz”, (v) “Ambealidoe Curs l modi”, (vi) “Vacatil Temcudi”, (vii) “Era Vanganavorli Murdi” all situated within the State of Goa and the Mines Adangaon, Khodli, Pissossa, Bhatkal, situated within the State of Karnataka. (ii) The parties are agreed that all the tax liabilities in regards to the said mining leases and mining concessions have been cleared up to 31/3/98 in view of K.V.S. Scheme. (iii) In respect of further period, returns have been filed, advance tax has been paid but up to now assessment has not been done. (iv) In respect of payments made under K.V.S. Scheme, amounts which were earlier paid to Income Tax Department are recoverable from the said Income Tax department and accordingly after the receipt thereof they shall be paid 42% to the Plaintiffs and 58% to the Defendants in the same manner as provided in clause 5 of these consent terms. 5. In consideration of the claims given up by the Plaintiffs in the suit, it is hereby agreed, ordered and decreed that the net amount lying with the present Receiver Shri Sandesh Naik shall be paid forthwith to the parties in the following manner:- (i) 12% of the amount to the Applicant no.1 and now his legal representatives. (ii) 12% of the amount to the Applicant no.2 and now his legal representatives. (iii) 12% of the amount to the Applicant no.3 and now his legal representatives. (iv) 6% of the amount to the respondent no.6. (v) the balance amount shall be paid over to the respondent nos.1 to 5 in equal shares. (vi) The application presented by Receiver in Misc. Civil Application No. 72/2000 which is pending before the High Court becomes unfructuous.” 4. This decree was passed on 20/04/2000. After this decree, by a letter dated 05/05/2000, M/s. N. S. Narvekar represented to the defendant bank requesting that the account in question may be closed and demand draft may be issued in favour of M/s. Narvekar Mines' account no.1335 with Syndicate Bank payable at Margao. This decree was passed on 20/04/2000. After this decree, by a letter dated 05/05/2000, M/s. N. S. Narvekar represented to the defendant bank requesting that the account in question may be closed and demand draft may be issued in favour of M/s. Narvekar Mines' account no.1335 with Syndicate Bank payable at Margao. The defendant Bank rather than closing the account and promptly paying the amount by demand draft as desired, dithered and engaged the plaintiffs in correspondence, trying to take shelter under clause 3(c) of the consent terms which referred to an account maintained in Bank of India, Margao Branch and asking the plaintiffs to get a clear directions from the Court to avoid apprehended loss of interest. Since this exchange of letters went on for quite some time, the plaintiffs ultimately filed a suit on 01/03/2004 directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.11,56,453/- lying in deposit with interest of at the rate of 24 % p.a. from the date of refusal i.e. 05/05/2000 amounting to Rs. 22,41,179/- till the date of filing the suit, with further interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. on the said amount. The plaintiffs claimed that this amount should be paid to M/s. N. S. Narvekar Mines account, since the plaintiffs and defendants in the original suit, were to get their respective shares from this account of M/s. N. S. Narvekar Mines. 5. The defendant bank contested this suit by filing written statement and also additional written statement. It was stated that the account standing in the name of initial receiver was closed and a new account was opened in the name of new receiver as per the banking practice and this is how eventually the account came to stand in the name of Shri Sandesh Naik. The bank admitted having received certified copy of the consent decree, but claimed inability to interpret these consent terms in the absence of context in which the terms were drawn up. Significantly, as to the discharge of the receiver, the bank refrained from making any comment. The defendant bank admitted that they had engaged into correspondence with M/s. N. S. Narvekar and asked them to obtain necessary directions from the Court, since the bank apprehended that many times such consent orders are obtained by fraud. Significantly, as to the discharge of the receiver, the bank refrained from making any comment. The defendant bank admitted that they had engaged into correspondence with M/s. N. S. Narvekar and asked them to obtain necessary directions from the Court, since the bank apprehended that many times such consent orders are obtained by fraud. Therefore, the defendant claimed that they had bonafide refused to part with money so that it should not go in wrong hands and, therefore, the bank refused any liability to pay any interest. It was further stated that since the account held was current account, there was no liability to pay any interest. In the additional written statement, the defendant denied about the legal representatives who were brought on record. 6. On these pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed necessary issues and after considering the evidence tendered, passed judgment impugned in this appeal and held that the defendant bank was liable to pay an amount of Rs.11,55,453.42/-but was not liable to pay any interest. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. 8. The defendant is State Bank of India and not a lay individual. The defendant must be having at its disposal services of personnel trained in Law in its Law Department apart from the services of lawyers on the panel of the bank. Therefore, if the defendant had any doubts about its liability to pay the amount upon discharge of receiver, it should have got those doubts cleared by taking proper advice. It, however, appears that the bank claimed that its legal advisers themselves advised the bank not to part with money and wanted the plaintiffs to seek necessary clarification from the Court. When a Civil Court passes a decree, there are ordinarily no further occasions for the Court to issue any clarification on the decree. Clause 5 of the consent terms was clear enough inasmuch as it held the plaintiffs herein entitled to 58 % of the amount held by the receiver. Clause 4 of the consent terms also categorically provided for discharge of the receiver. The account opened in the bank was in the capacity of receiver. Therefore, upon discharge of receiver, the original account holder would normally be entitled to receive the amount. Clause 4 of the consent terms also categorically provided for discharge of the receiver. The account opened in the bank was in the capacity of receiver. Therefore, upon discharge of receiver, the original account holder would normally be entitled to receive the amount. There was absolutely no reason for the bank to have any doubts in the matter. Even a layman should have understood the decree properly. Therefore, the excuse given by the bank which found favour with the learned trial Judge, even while the learned Judge held that the bank was liable to pay this amount, was lame and the learned Judge should not have accepted it. 9. As a result, it has to be held that the bank had unjustly withheld the amount from 05/05/2000. The learned Counsel for the respondent bank is right in submitting that since the account held was a current account, no interest was required to be paid, but this would be so only till the account is current i.e. in operation. The moment an account holder wants to close the account, the bank would be liable to pay the account holder the amount in deposit and if the bank kept the account holder out of the amount due, then, the bank would be liable to make good the loss which the account holder may suffer on account of being kept out of the amount due. A circular of Reserve Bank of India preventing the banks from paying any interest on current accounts as also the observations in Raneegunj Coal Association Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others and Punjab National Bank; would help the bank only to the extent of denial of interest till the request was made by the account holder to close the account. So, from 05/05/2000, since there was no current account, the bank would be liable to compensate the plaintiffs. 10. Mercifully, the pleas raised by the plaintiffs in this regard contained in paragraphs 22 and 25 of the plaint read as under : “22. In the meantime, the Directorate of Industries and Mines wrote a letter dated 01/12/2000 to pay royalty with penal interest. Same letter dated 01/12/2000 is annexed and marked as Exhibit N. The plaintiffs were compelled to make part payment of Rs.21,00,000/- towards Government Royalty out of Rs.60,71,746/- and balance amount of Rs.39,71,746/- was pending. In the meantime, the Directorate of Industries and Mines wrote a letter dated 01/12/2000 to pay royalty with penal interest. Same letter dated 01/12/2000 is annexed and marked as Exhibit N. The plaintiffs were compelled to make part payment of Rs.21,00,000/- towards Government Royalty out of Rs.60,71,746/- and balance amount of Rs.39,71,746/- was pending. Letter dated 05/12/2000 written to the Directorate of Industries and Mines were marked to the State Bank of India with a request to release payments immediately. Same letter dated 05/12/2000 is annexed and marked as Exhibit O. 25. It is thus clear that the Defendant does not dispute about the liability to pay the said amount. On the contrary, the liability has been acknowledged and the delay in payment is unjustified and without support of law. Therefore, it attracts interest and the Defendant acknowledges that there is loss of interest to the plaintiffs.” 11. The plaintiffs have fortunately not claimed any damages for being kept out of the amount due and have not stated that the plaintiffs have suffered any specific loss on account of being kept out of money due. The plaintiffs have also not stated that they are entitled to damages from the defendant on account of unjust enrichment by the defendant or that the defendant earned any specific amount from the money retained by the defendant. 12. Even so, the manager of the defendant bank was cross-examined, when he stepped into witness box as DW1 at exhibit 56. He stated that on 05/05/2000, the maximum lending rate of the bank was between 15 to 16 % p.a. He had also stated that the bank would have earned a sum of Rs.1 Lakh taking average interest rate at the rate of 9 % p.a. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are entitled to interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. and in any case, up to 15 to 16 % p.a. which was the lending rate of the bank. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent bank, even if bank lends money at the rate of 15 to 16 % p.a., this is not the amount which the bank makes out of the such lending, since there are several factors involved like the overhead expenses, risk etc. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent bank, even if bank lends money at the rate of 15 to 16 % p.a., this is not the amount which the bank makes out of the such lending, since there are several factors involved like the overhead expenses, risk etc. Considering the manner in which the plaintiffs have made out pleas for claiming interest in the plaint, the plaintiffs are entitled to interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. which the bank manager has said as having been earned by the bank. In view of this, to the extent of liability to pay interest, the learned trial Judge was obviously wrong. 14. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The decree passed by the learned trial Judge is modified to read as under : “The suit is partly decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.11,55,453.42 with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a. from 05/05/2000 till the amount is actually paid. The Bank may, to avoid any nagging of doubts that may still linger in the mind of the manager, deposit this amount in the executing Court.”