JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. Petitioner no.1, a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and other petitioners being its Directors have filed this petition praying to quash the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 239 of 2010 vide Annexure-5 with regard to rate of interest and the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 69 of 2014 under Annexure -1, modifying the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and directing that the opposite party-Bank is entitled to charge pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum half yearly rest on the amount due towards cash credit account and at 12.75 % interest per annum with half yearly rest on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the original application till realization with further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party-Bank to charge only simple rate of interest from the date of filing of Original Application till realization. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that petitioner no.1-Company has been established with the object to set up and run a Roller Flour Mills at Bhubaneswar of which petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the Directors as well as guarantors to the loan sanctioned by opposite party-Bank. Petitioner no.1-Company approached the State Bank of India at OUAT Campus Branch, Bhubaneswar for credit facilities for its business purposes. Accordingly, a cash credit (stock) limit of Rs.60.00 lacs and term loan of Rs. 100.00 lacs were sanctioned on the terms and conditions dated 01.10.2005. The terms and conditions of the sanction, inter alia, stipulated that the rate of interest for such cash credit loan was 2 % above SBAR effective rate of 10.25% with a minimum rate of 12.25% per annum with monthly rests. The rate of interest for the term loan was 2.5 % above SBAR rate of 10.25% with a minimum rate of 12.75 % per annum with monthly rests. The term loan was repayable in 23 quarterly installments, the first and second installment thereof being Rs. 3.00 lacs and the third installment being Rs.4.00 lacs and subsequent installments being Rs.4.50 lacs each starting from September, 2006. The petitioners had accepted the said terms and conditions. The term loan was repayable in 23 quarterly installments, the first and second installment thereof being Rs. 3.00 lacs and the third installment being Rs.4.00 lacs and subsequent installments being Rs.4.50 lacs each starting from September, 2006. The petitioners had accepted the said terms and conditions. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of petitioner no.1-Company vide its resolution dated 14.09.2005 authorized the Managing Director to execute necessary loan documents. Subsequently, the opposite party-Bank had also sanctioned its SME Credit Plus limit of Rs. 12.00 lacs under the same terms and conditions as applicable to cash credit (stock) limit vide letter of arrangement in Form SME-1 dated 12.04.2008, which was accepted by the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioner no.2 vide Board Resolution dated 09.04.2008 executed relevant documents in favour of the Bank. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 had executed the guarantee agreement in Form SME-3 for the overall limit of Rs. 172.00 lacs. Petitioner no.1-Company had availed the credit facilities from the opposite party-Bank but failed to adhere to the financial discipline and further failed to operate the account in accordance with the agreed terms. Consequently, the loan accounts became highly irregular and were ultimately classified as N.P.A. w.e.f. 26.07.2008 as per the R.B.I. guidelines. The opposite party-Bank through its notice dated 21.10.2009 had recalled the loan and requested the petitioners to repay the entire outstanding dues with interest, which failed to yield any response from the petitioners. Therefore, by notice dated 11.05.2010 the total outstanding in all the three accounts of petitioner no.1-Company with interest assessed up to 15.07.2010 is Rs. 2,14,37,856.12. For this defaulted amount, the opposite party-Bank approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack and filed application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 registered as O.A. No. 239 of 2010. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed the order on 30.11.2012 for recovery of Rs. 2,14,37,856.12 on contest holding that the petitioners are jointly and severally liable to pay pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % per annum on the amount due from the date of filing of the Original Application till full and final realization of the claim amount. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed the order on 30.11.2012 for recovery of Rs. 2,14,37,856.12 on contest holding that the petitioners are jointly and severally liable to pay pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % per annum on the amount due from the date of filing of the Original Application till full and final realization of the claim amount. Against the said order, the opposite party-Bank approached the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 01 of 2013/1703 contending that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack could not have reduced the rate of interest to 9%, when the parties have agreed to pay pendente lite and future interest at a higher rate. The appellate Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2014 set aside the portion of the judgment dated 30.11.2012 of Debts Recovery Tribunal reducing pendente lite and future interest and exonerating the petitioners from paying the compound interest within a period of one month and remanded the matter to the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack only on the point of pendente lite and future interest. On remand, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack vide judgment dated 03.04.2014 in O.A. No. 239 of 2010 held that grant of pendente lite and future interest is within the discretion of the Tribunal but that discretion is to be exercised judiciously. The Debts Recovery Tribunal further held that no case has been made out for reduction of pendente lite and future interest and on the contrary, there is a contract to pay the interest, the opposite party-Bank is entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and 12.75 % per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 69 of 2014 /421-422-1275 stating that though initially the Debts Recovery Tribunal has ordered on 30.11.2012 that the petitioners shall pay simple interest @ 9 % per annum towards pendente lite and future interest, subsequent direction vide order dated 03.04.2014 of the Appellate Tribunal that the Bank is entitled to charge pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum on the amount due as cash credit account and @ 12.75% per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the original application till realization, is arbitrary, unreasonable. Therefore the petitioners seek for modification of the said order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata instead of modifying the rate of interest only clarified the ambiguity stating that the opposite party-Bank shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at 12.25% per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and at 12.75 % interest per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the original application till realization vide order dated 30.07.2014. The petitioners having not satisfied with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack dated 3.4.2014 and consequential modified order, have filed this petition. 3. Mr. G. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in Annexure-5 on remand and consequential order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata dated 30.07.2014 in Annexure-1 so far as award of pendente lite and future interest is concerned, cannot sustain in the eye of law and seeks for quashing of the same. It is urged that when the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in its order dated 30.11.2012 in Annexure-2 has reduced the rate of pendente lite and future interest to 9% per annum, the same could not have been enhanced on remand vide order dated 03.04.2014 in Annexure-5 to 12.25 % per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and @ 12.75 % per annum with monthly rest on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization and on approach being made challenging the said order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, the same has been modified to the extent that the opposite party-Bank shall be entitled to claim pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and @ 12.75 % per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization on the basis of the contract entered into between the parties. 4. In course of hearing we called upon Mr. G. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners to show the infirmity in the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Annexure-1 dated 30.07.2014 but he is unable to point out the same. 5. The petitioners being the borrowers entered into an agreement to pay pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum with monthly rests so far as cash credit loan is concerned and as such, the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement entered into between them. Therefore, learned the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack could not have reduced the pendente lite and future interest @ 9 % per annum in its order dated 30.11.2012, contrary to the terms of the agreement. When the opposite party-Bank preferred the appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in Appeal No. 01 of 2013/1703, after due adjudication, the learned Tribunal set aside that portion of the judgment reducing pendente lite and future interest and also exonerating the petitioner from paying the compound interest and remanded the matter back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack to consider and decide on the point of pendente lite and future interest. On remand, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack has come to a definite finding that since no case has been made out so far as reduction of pendente lite and future interest is concerned and on the contrary there is a contract to pay the interest, and held that the opposite party-Bank shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and @ 12.75 % per annum with monthly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization. On appeal being preferred by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, the learned Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the contractual rate of interest towards pendente lite and future interest could be modified from the monthly rest to half yearly rest and only modified the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal to the extent that the opposite party-Bank shall be entitled to pendente lite and future interest @ 12.25 % per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards cash credit account and @ 12.75 % per annum with half yearly rests on the amount due towards term loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization. 6. In view of the fact that the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement, the Debts Recovery Tribunal awarded interest in terms of the agreement, which has been modified by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, in place of ‘monthly rest” the Tribunal directed to pay in “half yearly rest” giving laxcity to the petitioners to comply with the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioners to interfere with the order impugned in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. Mr. G. Acharya, learned Sr. Counsel further urged that excess amount having been realized, the petitioners are entitled to get refund of the said amount from the opposite party-Bank. 8. 7. Mr. G. Acharya, learned Sr. Counsel further urged that excess amount having been realized, the petitioners are entitled to get refund of the said amount from the opposite party-Bank. 8. We express no opinion whether the petitioners are entitled to get refund of the excess amount on account of over payment but we observe that in the event the petitioners are entitled to refund, the same shall be calculated and refunded in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period three months from the date of communication of the judgment. 9. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.