Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Asha for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. F.B. Benjamine George

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The petitioner participated in a public auction conducted by the bank, which was based on an auction notice claiming the property was free of encumbrances and pending litigations. The petitioner deposited the full sale consideration and received a sale certificate (!) (!) .

2. Despite assurances and the deposit, the bank did not deliver vacant possession of the property to the petitioner, nor did it refund the amount paid, even after several years. The petitioner repeatedly requested either possession or refund, but the bank's responses were delayed and non-committal (!) (!) .

3. Multiple pending litigations and encumbrances related to the property were not disclosed in the auction notice, which was a statutory obligation under the relevant rules. The non-disclosure was alleged to be a violation of mandatory statutory provisions (!) (!) .

4. The petitioner was unaware of the ongoing litigations and encumbrances at the time of auction, and such nondisclosure influenced his decision to participate in good faith. The failure of the bank to disclose material facts is considered a statutory violation (!) (!) .

5. The sale was conducted under the belief that the property was free from encumbrances, and the petitioner had relied on the bank’s assurances. The continued pendency of litigations and the absence of clear disclosure undermine the validity of the sale (!) (!) .

6. The petitioner has a right to seek refund of the entire sale amount, along with interest, due to the bank's failure to deliver possession and the nondisclosure of encumbrances. The court held that the bank is liable to refund the amount with interest at a specified rate (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasized that the bank's statutory obligation includes notifying all known encumbrances and litigations before the auction, and failure to do so invalidates the sale or entitles the purchaser to a refund (!) (!) .

8. The petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount paid, calculated at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit, due to the bank's retention of the funds without delivering possession for an extended period (!) (!) .

9. The court directed the bank to refund the sale consideration with interest within four weeks of the order, and it retained the liberty to cancel the sale certificate if necessary (!) .

10. The argument that the petitioner should have exhausted alternative remedies was rejected, as the petitioner was a third-party purchaser and the bank's statutory violations warranted direct judicial intervention (!) .

11. The court also noted that the sale was conducted on an "as is" basis, and the petitioner had accepted the terms, but the bank's failure to disclose material encumbrances and litigations invalidated the basis of such acceptance (!) (!) .

12. Overall, the court found that the bank's conduct in suppressing material information and delaying possession justified the petitioner’s claim for refund along with interest, and the writ petition was accordingly allowed (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on these key points.