JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Dey, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant (bank). He submits, the bank seeks modification of direction in paragraph-4 of order dated 9th February, 2022, disposing of the writ petition, to extent of the direction regarding 'accrued interest'. He submits, the money was kept in a 'no lien' closed account. Such an account is akin to current account and does not bear interest. 2. On query from Court he submits, there was direction upon writ petitioner by order dated 12th March, 2013 made in WP(C) no.2797 of 2013 (writ petitioners' own case). Instead of depositing the amount directed, petitioners deposited only Rs.1.15 crores with instructions for it to be kept it a 'no lien' account. It was accordingly kept. By said order dated 9th February, 2022, made in writ petitioners' subsequent writ petition, there was direction to release the money to it along with 'accrued interest'. There was no accrual of interest and therefore, prayer for review. 3. Mr. Dey draws attention to information disclosed in the application regarding current accounts, by annexure-X/1. Under entry 4.4.1 it has been clearly stated that no interest is paid on current accounts. He then refers to annexure-X/2, which is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on internal office accounts for financial year, 2021-22 to submit, it is stated clearly under 'operations of internal current office accounts' that the account is to be used, inter alia, for other receipts such as retention money. He reiterates, there was clear instruction by writ petitioner to keep the money in a 'no lien' account, without mandate. Hence, as per the SOP, the money was kept in a current account, which does not bear interest. 4. Mr. Sarangi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of writ petitioners. He opposes the application. He submits, under cover of letter dated 13th April, 2013, the money was deposited. Pursuant thereto there was transfer of the account to the assets re-construction company on 27th September, 2013. Yet, the money continued to remain with review applicant and not released to his clients. The bank is liable to pay interest on the money had and received by it, to use of his client. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the asset re-construction company. He submits, the transfer was duly made on 27th September, 2013. 5. Mr. Yet, the money continued to remain with review applicant and not released to his clients. The bank is liable to pay interest on the money had and received by it, to use of his client. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the asset re-construction company. He submits, the transfer was duly made on 27th September, 2013. 5. Mr. Dey in reply reiterates, the money was deposited under order of Court. Unless there was further order for release of it, his client could not have dealt with the money. He reiterates further, there was clear instruction by writ petitioners to keep the money in 'no lien' account, without mandate. Upon the transfer having been made petitioners mounted challenge against it. Petitioners omitted to obtain direction from Court upon his client to pay out the money. His client had no purpose in keeping the money in 'no lien' account, without mandate. It did not serve the business of his client. As soon as there was direction to release the same by said order dated 9th February, 2022, his client complied forthwith but also applied for review on the direction therein regarding 'accrued interest'. 6. Text of said order dated 12th March, 2013 made in W.P.(C) no.2797 of 2013 is reproduced below. '12.03.2013 Misc. Case No.2723 of 2013 Issue notice as above. Accept one set of process fee. As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the notice under Annexure-14 till 5th April, 2013 subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,30,00000/- (Rupees one Crore Thirty Lakhs) in two equal installments by 15th April, 2013 before the opposite party-Bank. The 1st installment shall be paid by 29th March, 2013 and the 2nd installment by 15th April, 2013. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.' A paragraph from writ petitioners letter dated 13th April, 2013 addressed to the bank, under cover of which the money was deposited, is extracted and reproduced below. 'To show our bonafide, we are giving a down payment of Rs.115 lakhs in shape of DD which is aprox 10% at total outstanding. To kept in 'No-Lien Account' with your Branch till the final approval of our proposal for payment of balance outstanding approved from H.O.' 7. 'To show our bonafide, we are giving a down payment of Rs.115 lakhs in shape of DD which is aprox 10% at total outstanding. To kept in 'No-Lien Account' with your Branch till the final approval of our proposal for payment of balance outstanding approved from H.O.' 7. It appears, there was direction for interim measure by said order dated 12th March, 2013 in writ petitioners' own writ petition made earlier. Nothing has been shown regarding writ petitioners having taken steps to thereafter obtain direction for release of the money, upon the transfer having had been made on 27th September, 2013. Petitioners filed the subsequent writ petition, given rise to this review application. It was presented on 17th March, 2021. On perusal of the order sheet it is appears that the writ petition was moved before and disposed of by this Bench on 9th February, 2022. The prayer for release of the money was allowed. Taking that into consideration as well as the banking norms relied upon by Mr. Dey, there is no scope for writ petitioners to resist prayer of the bank for review. The application is allowed. Order dated 9th February, 2022 is modified by deleting the phrase 'accrued interest'. 8. The RVWPET is allowed and disposed of.