ORDER : 1. Respondent bank had filed an Original Application being O.A.No.196 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- with interest from petitioner. Petitioner contested the original application on various grounds including the ground that the claim itself was barred by limitation. Of course, petitioner also raised a ground that the claim was neither a debt nor a due payable to the bank. Also, the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was challenged. The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the defence and allowed the original application vide order dated 28.03.2012. 2. Against the said order dated 28.03.2012, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, being R.A.No.65 of 2014. While disposing the appeal, petitioner got part relief inasmuch as the interest was reduced from 12% to 6%. At the time of filing the appeal, petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.16,35,625/- being 50% of the decretal amount and this is the subject matter of this petition. 3. The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was dated 26.04.2017, was challenged by petitioner in this Court in W.P.No.20925 of 2017. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order and judgment dated 23.01.2018. By the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the original application itself was barred by limitation and hence, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the original application cannot be sustained. That order has attained finality. The bank had filed a review application, which has been dismissed. 4. Armed with the order dated 23.01.2018 by this Court, petitioner filed an application for refund of the pre-deposit amount. That application came to be disposed of vide an order dated 13.08.2019, which is impugned in this petition. By the said order, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has directed that the pre-deposit amount should be paid over to the bank and not to petitioner. Why so is not mentioned in the order. The order simply says "... it is always mentioned that amount of pre-deposit will be received by bank for dealing with it according to law." The relevant paragraph reads as under: "In so far as order dated 26.4.2017 of this Tribunal is concerned, it appears that there is no stay of the order by Hon'ble High Court as on today. The order simply says "... it is always mentioned that amount of pre-deposit will be received by bank for dealing with it according to law." The relevant paragraph reads as under: "In so far as order dated 26.4.2017 of this Tribunal is concerned, it appears that there is no stay of the order by Hon'ble High Court as on today. Further, as a matter of direction, it is always mentioned that amount of pre-deposit will be received by Bank for dealing with it according to law. It appears that this necessary part of the order is missing in the order dated 26.4.2017. Hence, to make it a complete order, direction petition IA-589/2019 stands disposed of stating that the pre-deposit amount will have to be received by Respondent bank from the Registry of this Tribunal and for dealing with it according to law." 5. We would say that by passing the said order, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has effectively acted contrary to the findings of the High Court, which has held that the claim of the bank was barred by limitation. If the pre-deposit is returned to the bank, that would effectively mean that the claim, which has been set aside by the High Court as barred by limitation, is partly satisfied. In our view, such an order could not have been passed, particularly when the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal also observes "... it appears that there is no stay of the order by Hon'ble High Court as on today." In the circumstances, in our view, the pre-deposit ought to have been returned to petitioner. 6. No counter has been filed. Sri.Swarnavel for petitioner states that the amount has been returned to bank, which also Mr.Arockia Satheesh confirms. Sri.Arockia Satheesh, however, states that he does not know when the money was actually received by the bank. We direct the bank to pay over the said amount of pre-deposit being Rs.16,35,625/- together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount was received by the bank till the date of payment/realisation. This amount shall be paid over to petitioner on or before 31.01.2025. 7. We direct the bank to pay over the said amount of pre-deposit being Rs.16,35,625/- together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount was received by the bank till the date of payment/realisation. This amount shall be paid over to petitioner on or before 31.01.2025. 7. The current Branch Manager shall file an affidavit with a copy to petitioner before 30.01.2025 stating therein as to when the amount was received and also annexe a calculation sheet detailing therein how the amount that is being paid over to petitioner has been arrived at. 8. Sri. Swarnavel states that the amount be credited to the following account and the PAN number of petitioner is AAACB2534K. Bank : Indian Bank, Ranipet Industrial Complex Branch Name: Balaji Oil Industries P. Ltd. A/c. No.: 7940516344 IFSC No.: IDIB000R036 If any TDS is deducted by the bank, the amount shall be paid over to the authorities within the time prescribed in accordance with law and the TDS certificate shall also be issued to petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 13.08.2019 is quashed and the petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.