The court upheld that failure to remit the full auction amount leads to the lawful forfeiture of the deposit as per applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 18^th day of February 2026)

The petitioner has participated in an e - auction conducted by the respondent company. The auction was held for sale of 5 items of immovable property. The sale was conducted on 17.3.2025 and the petitioner was declared as the sole and successful bidder for all the 5 properties. Sale confirmation letters were issued to the petitioner as per Ext.Nos.P-2(a) to 2(e). The petitioner deposited 25% of bid amount, but could not remit the balance 75% of the amount in time. So, an extension of time was sought, and the respondent extended the time till 14.6.2025.

2. On 30.5.2025, the petitioner remitted the balance amount in respect of item No.2 property and the balance in respect of item No.5 property on 31.5.2025. However, in respect of properties, namely item Nos.1, 3 and 4, the petitioner could not remit the balance amount. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Ext.P7 representation for grant of further time by 60 days to pay the balance purchase price. Alleging inaction, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.21846 of 2025 and this court passed an interim order dated 13.6.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.1,00,00,000/- within one month as per Ext.P8. Another interim order (Ext.P9) was passed on 28.7.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.2,21,44,100/- within 10 days. The petitioner could not remit the amount as ordered in Ext.P9. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent cancelled the auction held in respect of item 1,3 and 4 and forfeited 25% of the total consideration and informed the petitioner through Ext.P10 letter.

3. On 10.9.2025, W.P.(C) No.21846 of 2025 was disposed of directing the respondent bank to return Rs.1 crore deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 13.6.2025, since the latter interim order was not complied with. It was made clear that as far as the claim for return of EMD is concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to either approach the bank or respond to the notice issued by the bank or take such steps in a manner known to law.

4. The petitioner made another request through Ext.P11 for adjusting 25% of the amount forfeited as EMD in the forthcoming auction which was rejected by Ext.P12. Thereafter, a new e-auction notice is issued as per Ext.P13. In such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the forthcoming auction to be conducted in respect of Item Nos. 1, 3 and 4 properties described in Exhibit P-1 Sale Notice which is mentioned as Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the Exhibit P-13 paper publication;

II. Direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to treat and adjust the forfeited amount of Rs.1,07,42,500/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakh Forty-Two Thousand Five Hundred only), being the 25% deposit earlier remitted by the petitioner pursuant to the auction held on 17.03.2025, as earnest money or part of sale consideration in the forthcoming auction, in the event the petitioner is declared the highest bidder.

III. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P-10 forfeiture letter dated 06.09.2025 and quash the same.

IV. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

V. To dispense with the filing of true English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language.”

5. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in W.P.(C) No.5582 of 2025 dated 25.2.2025, whereby in a similar circumstan