Auction purchaser relief on possession, title deeds, TDS refund and simple interest; compound interest was declined.

An auction purchaser sought vacant physical possession of a secured asset, delivery of original title deeds, refund of TDS, and interest on the auction deposit. The bank stated that possession proceedings had been initiated under the SARFAESI Act and undertook to secure delivery in accordance with law; the title deeds relief was treated as consequential to possession. On the monetary claim, the bank accepted liability to refund TDS and pay interest on the deposited auction amount, but disputed compound interest. The Court declined compound interest, distinguished the cited precedent on the facts, and held that simple interest at 12% per annum was payable for the relevant period, along with TDS refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the auction purchaser was entitled to delivery of vacant physical possession of the secured asset and the original title deeds; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the TDS amount and interest on the auction amount, including compound interest or only simple interest.

Issue (i): whether the auction purchaser was entitled to delivery of vacant physical possession of the secured asset and the original title deeds.

Analysis: The respondent-bank stated that proceedings had already been initiated before the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and undertook to secure delivery of possession in accordance with law with the petitioner's cooperation. The relief relating to the original title deeds was treated as consequential to delivery of possession.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to delivery of possession and the original title deeds, and the respondent-bank's undertaking was recorded.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the TDS amount and interest on the auction amount, including compound interest or only simple interest.

Analysis: The bank accepted liability to refund the TDS amount and to pay interest accrued on the deposited auction amount, but disputed the claim for compound interest. The Court distinguished the relied-upon precedent on the ground that, here, possession of the property was also in issue and the bank had undertaken to deliver possession. On that basis, compound interest was declined, but the petitioner was held entitled to simple interest at 12% per annum for the relevant period. The TDS refund was also directed.

Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining refund of the TDS amount and simple interest at 12% per annum, but not compound interest.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by granting consequential reliefs in favour of the petitioner, while limiting monetary relief to simple interest and rejecting the claim for compound interest.

---