https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187334 Forfeiture of earnest money was unjustified where the seller failed to disclose a material defect affecting the property's usability, namely the absence of a proper independent approach road. The seller's duty under Section 55(1)(a) and (b) of the Transfer of Property Act required disclosure of material defects, and that obligation was not met because the purchaser had raised the issue before bid confirmation and the seller's own correspondence showed the passage was not fit for vehicle movement. Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act did not assist the seller, as the purchaser was an auction buyer and the forfeiture clause could not be used to profit from the seller's own non-disclosure. Refund of earnest money with interest was warranted. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Oct 2023 09:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187334 Forfeiture of earnest money was unjustified where the seller failed to disclose a material defect affecting the property's usability, namely the absence of a proper independent approach road. The seller's duty under Section 55(1)(a) and (b) of the Transfer of Property Act required disclosure of material defects, and that obligation was not met because the purchaser had raised the issue before bid confirmation and the seller's own correspondence showed the passage was not fit for vehicle movement. Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act did not assist the seller, as the purchaser was an auction buyer and the forfeiture clause could not be used to profit from the seller's own non-disclosure. Refund of earnest money with interest was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187334