ORDER : I.A. No.1/2018 has been filed by respondent No.2-Party-in-person seeking to vacate the interim order dated 12.12.2017 wherein the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru ( for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 28.11.2017 in Appeal No.142/2016 has been stayed by this Court. 2. Though the matter is listed for consideration of I.A. 1/2018, I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties on merits. 3. Petitioner has assailed order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.142/2016. By that order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner herein who was the first respondent before the Tribunal to refund to the second respondent herein who was the appellant before the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.1,95,000/deposited by him with the Bank at the time of filing Appeal No.124/2016. 4. The relevant facts of the case are that father of second respondent Late Nagaraja had obtained a loan of Rs.13,00,000/from the petitioner – Bank. According to the second respondent, the said loan amount has been cleared. However, the Bank – petitioner herein raised a dispute U/s 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for brevity) before the first respondent. By award dated 11.3.2016, the second respondent herein and his family members being legal representatives of the deceased borrower – Nagaraja were directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,45,950/along with interest as stated in the said award. That award was assailed by the legal representatives of the deceased-Nagaraja before the Tribunal in Appeal No.142/2016. By judgment dated 24.3.2017, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the award and remitted the matter to the first respondent herein for hearing afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the second respondent herein filed an application seeking refund of Rs.1,95,000/said to have been deposited by him in the first respondent Bank in respect of Appeal No.142/2016. By the impugned order dated 28.11.2017, the Tribunal has directed the petitioner – Bank to refund the said amount to the second respondent herein. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-Bank has preferred this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for first respondent and second respondent who has appeared as party-in-person. 6. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner-Bank has preferred this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for first respondent and second respondent who has appeared as party-in-person. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner –Bank submitted that pursuant to award dated 11.3.2016, notification as per Annexure B was issued for conducting public action in respect of the mortgaged property on 31.8.2016. A day prior to that, on 30.8.2016, the second respondent wrote to the Bank and submitted a Demand Draft for Rs.1,95,000/and that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.3,45,000/by 20th October, 2016 and accordingly, the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,95,000/to the petitioner – Bank. When the second respondent paid the amount of Rs.1,95,000/as per Annexure C –letter dated 30.8.2016 and agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs.3,45,000/, the Tribunal could not have ordered for refund of a sum of Rs.1,95,000/to the second respondent herein merely because the award passed by the first respondent was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent herein and his family members are due to pay the outstanding amount to the Bank and the said sum of Rs.1,95,000/paid by the second respondent has been adjusted towards out standing dues. 7. Per contra, the second respondent refuted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner and his family members did not owe any thing to the Bank and that a sum of Rs.1,95,000/was paid pursuant to Sub Section 2 of Section 105 of the Act and on the award being set aside, he requested the Tribunal to direct the Bank to refund the amount and the Tribunal has rightly directed to refund the said amount to the second respondent. That in the event, the award is to be made against second respondent and his family members, the petitioner – bank would be entitled to recover the same. But at this stage, the Bank could not have retained a sum of Rs.1,95,000/paid by him pursuant to Sub section 2 of Section 105 of the Act. He further submitted that this Court has stayed the direction on 28.11.2017 regarding refund of the amount as directed by the Tribunal and the said stay order may be vacated and writ petition may be dismissed. 8. Learned High Court Govt. He further submitted that this Court has stayed the direction on 28.11.2017 regarding refund of the amount as directed by the Tribunal and the said stay order may be vacated and writ petition may be dismissed. 8. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader appearing for Respondent No.1 drew my attention to Sub Section 2 of Section 105 of the Act and submitted after disposal of the appeal, the amount deposited shall be adjusted towards amount payable by the appellant and in case no amount is required to be paid by the appellant, the amount so deposited shall be refunded to the appellant by the bank i.e., the petitioner herein. Therefore he submitted that appropriate orders may be made in this instant case. 9. The detailed narration of facts and events would not require a reiteration except to high light the fact that the award passed by the first respondent at Annexure A dated 11.3.2016 has been set aside by the Tribunal on remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, in law, there is no award in the eye of law which is to be satisfied by second respondent and his family members. In the circumstances, second respondent sought for refund of Rs.1,95,000/paid to the Bank which, according to him was paid pursuant to Sub Section 2 of Section 105 of the Act or else the appeal would not have been entertained at all. Since the award made against the second respondent has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, for the present there is no award which is operating against the second respondent and his family members. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in directing to refund of the said amount to the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned order would not call for interference. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that in the event if there is any award passed against the second respondent or his family members, the petitioner – Bank is entitled to execute that award in accordance with law, subject to any further orders to be made by the competent authority or court. The petitioner is directed to refund the amount to the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. The petitioner is directed to refund the amount to the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this Court on 21.3.2018 is vacated. I.A. 1/2018 is allowed. It is further clarified that the interim order granted on 12.12.2017 in no way stayed proceedings before the first respondent on remand of the matter by the Tribunal. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law.