Auction bidder's right to sale deed depends on timely payment and written extension; re-auction upheld in judicial review.

A successful auction bidder acquires no enforceable right to compel execution of the sale deed unless the balance purchase price is paid within the statutory period under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, or within a written extension. On that basis, the re-auction and sale in favour of subsequent bidders were upheld, and judicial review did not justify interference merely because the bidder was not earlier informed of pending proceedings or because the reserve price was challenged. The writ of mandamus was therefore unavailable for want of a corresponding legal right, while the question of forfeiture was left open for the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-auction and consequent sale in favour of the subsequent bidders were liable to be set aside and a writ of mandamus could be issued directing execution of the sale deed in favour of the original highest bidder, despite failure to deposit the balance purchase price within the stipulated time and absence of any written extension.

Analysis: The auction was validly initiated, and the borrower's challenge was not in existence when the bid process commenced. After the interim restraint was vacated, the successful bidder was given time to deposit the balance amount, but no written agreement extended the statutory period for payment. Under Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the balance purchase price had to be paid on or before the fifteenth day of confirmation of sale, or within such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing. A writ of mandamus could not be granted in the absence of a corresponding legal right. The omission to inform the bidder earlier about the pending proceedings did not, in the facts of the case, render the re-auction illegal, and the reserve price fixation also did not furnish a proper basis for interference in judicial review.

Conclusion: The re-auction was not liable to be struck down, and no mandamus could issue in favour of the original highest bidder. The challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court interfered with the single judge's directions, upheld the re-auction, and restored the legal consequences flowing from the bidder's default, while leaving the question of forfeiture open to be pursued before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A successful auction bidder acquires no enforceable right to compel execution of the sale deed unless the balance price is paid within the statutory period or within a written extension, and in the absence of such compliance a re-auction will not ordinarily be interdicted in judicial review.

---