https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292888 The Court held that the State's forfeiture of the security deposit was unjustified and illegal as the additional conditions introduced after the auction were not part of the original terms. The Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, ordering the refund of the security deposit of ? 3 lakhs with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.02.1996 until realization. Additionally, the Respondents were directed to pay the appeal costs amounting to ? 10,000/- to the Appellant. en-us Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:14:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292888 The Court held that the State's forfeiture of the security deposit was unjustified and illegal as the additional conditions introduced after the auction were not part of the original terms. The Court ruled in favor of the Appellant, ordering the refund of the security deposit of ? 3 lakhs with interest at 9% p.a. from 01.02.1996 until realization. Additionally, the Respondents were directed to pay the appeal costs amounting to ? 10,000/- to the Appellant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292888