Judgment :

1] Indian Bank has filed these applications praying for clarification of certain directions contained in the final judgment dated 16.05.2008 of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3303/2005 along with Civil Appeal Nos. 3336, 3337, 3338 and 3304-3335 of 2005.

2.1] Respondents herein are cooperative societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. They deposited certain amounts in cash in fixed deposits of Banks wherefor Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were to be issued. Such deposits were made through some so-called Commission Agents of the Banks on payment of huge commission which is ordinarily not allowed by the Nationalized Banks.

2.2] Applications for grant of loans by various persons were filed before the prescribed authorities of the banks on the basis of the said FDRs. Allegedly a large number of officers of the banks were involved in a scam whereby unofficial investments of the said amount were being made.

2.3] As and when the FDRs matured, the investors requested the Banks for their encashment. The banks refused to accede thereto stating that the amount under the FDRs had already been paid by way of loans and, thus, no further amount was payable. It was contended that a fraud on the banks has been practiced to which the depositors and the officers of the banks were parties.

2.4] Writ petitions were filed. A learned Single Judge of the High Court opined that serious disputed questions of fact being involved in the said writ petitions, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners.

2.5] Despite the same, the learned single judge relying on the provisions contained in Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 directed constitution of a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of India or his nominee to go into the matter in great details. Various powers were delegated in favour of the Committee including the one that the decision of the Committee shall be final and binding upon the parties.

2.5.1] A Division Bench of the said Court in an intra court appeal preferred there against, however, stayed only the operation of some of the clauses of the said order. The Committee, however, was allowed to function.

2.5.2] A special leave petition filed there against has been dismissed by this Court with certain observations.

2.6] The Committee submitted its report. It was found that principally the officers of the banks were involved in the matter of commission of the alleged fraud on the Banks.

2.6.1] Members of the Committee, however, differed in their opinion as to whether, having regard to the limited scope of the enquiry, any positive direction could be issued.

2.7] Relying on the report of the Committee, the Division Bench of the High Court opined that as the writ petitioners were not parties to the fraud, subject to any other or further orders that may be passed in the criminal case, appellant-banks should be directed to pay the amounts under the FDRs to the depositors.

2.8.1] Appellants filed appeals aggrieved by the said order, upon obtaining special leave thereof.

2.8.2] On 5th April 2004, a limited notice was issued by this Court, which is to the following effect:-

"Issue notice on the special leave petition limited to the question as to whether the High Court should have directed payment having regard to the fact that the Committee itself had not finally resolved the question of liability as far as the disputed amount was concerned.

Issue notice on the prayer for interim relief also."

2.8.3] This Court in its order dated 10th December, 2004 explained the said order stating:

"The issue which is now required to be resolved is a narrow one viz. whether the Committee had finally decided that the amounts payable by the Bank (a) were the liability of the Bank and (b) if so, what was the quantum if any, payable by the Bank to the depositors. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent prays for time till after the vacation.

Let the matter appear two weeks after reop