The auction purchaser is entitled to a refund of amounts paid along with interest due to violations in the auction process.

1. This review application is filed by the auction purchaser to review the order dated 2 September 2015 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2210 of 2015, primarily on the ground that while allowing the revision petition filed by the first respondent, direction was not issued to the Bank to refund the sale amount deposited by him along with the stamp duty and registration fee, with interest.

2. The first respondent availed financial assistance from the SAF Branch of Canara Bank, Coimbatore. Since the loan amount was not repaid as per schedule, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , [hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act']. The first respondent challenged the measures taken by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was confirmed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The matter was taken up before this Court on multiple occasions by way of civil revision petition and Writ Petition.

3. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal] in the earlier round of litigation, recorded a finding that the sale was made in violation of the statutory rules.

4. The Bank sold the property in public auction. The applicant participated in the auction and purchased the property. The Bank executed the document in his name after collecting the sale amount. The Appellate Tribunal considered the challenge made by the first respondent to the sale in R.A.(S.A.)No.131/2011. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Tribunal after recording a finding that the sale was made in violation of the statutory rules and that it deserves to be set aside but denied relief solely on the ground that appropriate relief was not prayed for by the first respondent herein. The said order was challenged before this Court.

5. This Court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and allowed the civil revision petition with the following findings:

41. We are not in a position to agree with the reasonings recorded by the DRAT for the following reasons.

(i) The Tribunal found that the sale was made in violation of the Statute and as such, it is liable to be set aside. In fact while concluding the order, the DRAT observed that albeit the sale was not in accordance with the Rules, as the appellant allowed the issuance of the sale certificate and did not question the same, he is not entitled to question the sale at a later point of time.

(ii) The confirmation of sale is a consequential action directly referable to the factum of sale.

(iii) The petitioner filed I.A.No.877 of 2010 for amendment of the prayer. The said application was not taken independently. It was disposed of along with S.A.No.34 of 2010 by order dated 31 May 2011. The final order was challenged in R.A.(S.A.) NO.131 of 2011. The order in I.A.No.877 of 2010 was part of the final order dated 31 May 2011 in S.A.No.34 of 2010, which was challenged in appeal by the petitioner.

(iv) In the appeal, the prayer was to set aside the order dated 31 May 2011 in S.A.No.34 of 2010. The order dated 31 May 2011 would include the order in I.A.No.877 of 2010. Therefore the DRAT was not correct in its observation that the order in I.A.No.877 of 2010 has become final on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to challenge it before the Appellate Tribunal.

(v) The confirmation was made pursuant to the sale made on 5 March 2010. When it is made out that the sale itself was bad in law the confirmation would go automatically. There is no need for a further prayer to set aside t