JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction against the Bank to disburse a sum of Rs.2,25,092/- along with interest @ 11% per annum from the date the same became due and payable to the petitioner i.e. from 27th December, 2005. This relief is founded on the stand taken by the petitioner in the communication sent to the Managing Director dated 11th August, 2011, Annexure P-6. The same reads thus:- "Dear Sir, Please refer to my previous letter Dt. 28/01/2011 and its subsequent reminder Dt 02/07/2011 wide which the above such FDR amounting to Rs. 2,25,092/- only was submitted to you for want of calculation of up to date interest on the same from the Dt. of its issue at the rates applicable on it in those days. Along with . release of interest for the delaid payments of my retairal benefits contineously for eight months for Rs. 5,80,148/-. It is a matter of surprised that inspite of orders of the different Courts no heed to diseffect has been taken by your office uptill now. It is once again requested to please look into the matter at your earliest and arrange to send my FDR after calculating the interest today. Thanking you." When the matter was heard on 5th August, 2013, after considering the arguments of both sides, the Court called upon the Bank counsel to take instructions whether the Bank would agree to pay interest from 19th September, 2006 to 15th January, 2011, keeping in mind the stand taken by the parties and in particular, by the Bank in the reply-affidavit. With reference thereto, counsel for the respondent-Bank has taken instructions. He submits that the Bank has agreed, in principle, to pay interest on the amount of FDR as applicable at the time of issuing the same to the petitioner for the relevant period from 19th September, 2006 till 15th January, 2011 on the basis of letter sent by him to the Managing Director of the Bank. That decision has been taken by the Managing Director himself. 3. TODAY , when the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner submits that even for the subsequent period from January, 2011, the petitioner should be awarded interest till the amount is actually received. This submission is unacceptable. That decision has been taken by the Managing Director himself. 3. TODAY , when the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner submits that even for the subsequent period from January, 2011, the petitioner should be awarded interest till the amount is actually received. This submission is unacceptable. For, on the earlier occasion, after considering the submission and stand taken in the reply-affidavit of the Bank, the Court recorded in presence of the counsel appearing for the parties, calling upon the Bank to respond to pay interest only for the specified period. The petitioner made no protest. That period was specified, as the previous Bench (to which one of us Chief Justice A.M. Khanwilkar was a member) was of the opinion, that the Bank cannot be blamed for the acts of commission and omission of the petitioner of returning the principal amount, which was offered to him by the Bank in January, 2011. Since the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction and is seeking equitable relief, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and blame the Bank or make it liable to pay interest for the further period, having refused the principal amount offered to him by the Bank. 4. AS the matter stands today, the Bank has already taken a decision to pay the amount of interest for the period between 19th September, 2006 till 15th January, 2011. Nothing more can be done in this petition. The petition is disposed of on accepting the undertaking given by the respondent-Bank through counsel to pay the entire amount with interest within one week from today.