MPID auction sale terms can override statutory disclosure duties, barring later refund or damages claims by the purchaser.

Statutory auction sales under the MPID Act were held not open to writ review where the bidder had already pursued the designated forum and not challenged the statutory appeal route. The Court treated the auction notice and tender conditions as a contract to the contrary under section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, because they required independent verification of title, encumbrances and records. On that basis, and given acceptance of the sale certificate and possession without protest, the auction purchaser could not claim refund, damages or interest for non-supply of title deeds or alleged disclosure defects.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the MPID Act and the earlier order rejecting similar reliefs; (ii) Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to refund of the purchase price, damages, or interest on the ground that title deeds were not supplied and disclosure under section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was allegedly incomplete.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the MPID Act and the earlier order rejecting similar reliefs?

Analysis: The auction arose under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, under which the attached property vested in the Competent Authority by operation of law and was dealt with through the designated statutory mechanism. The petitioner had already approached the designated court and the relief for financial loss had been declined, while the statutory appeal under section 11 was not pursued. In these circumstances, the writ remedy was treated as inappropriate for re-agitating the same grievance.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on this ground, and the challenge was not accepted in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction purchaser was entitled to refund of the purchase price, damages, or interest on the ground that title deeds were not supplied and disclosure under section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was allegedly incomplete?

Analysis: The auction notice and tender document contained specific caution and inspection clauses requiring independent verification of title, encumbrances, liabilities, and related records, and the sale was expressly on an expanded risk-bearing basis. The Court treated these clauses as a contract to the contrary for purposes of section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It also held that the MPID regime is materially different from SARFAESI and debt-recovery sales, and that once the property had vested in the Competent Authority, sold under the statutory process, and the attachment was lifted, no further claim for refund or compensation survived. The petitioner had accepted the sale certificate and possession without protest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund, damages, or interest, and the claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be devoid of merit because the statutory auction under the MPID framework, coupled with the specific tender conditions and the earlier rejected reliefs, left no legal basis for restoration of the purchase money or ancillary compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an auction under the MPID Act expressly places bidders on notice through detailed caution and inspection clauses, those terms constitute a contract to the contrary under section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, and a successful bidder who accepts the sale certificate and possession cannot later seek refund or damages merely because the title documents are not furnished.

---