https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47383 Confirmation of a statutory sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act supported delivery of possession of the purchased unit once the deposit was made in accordance with the sale terms, and a third-party departmental objection could not justify withholding possession. The writ court could direct delivery of possession in such circumstances, while any separate liability against the purchaser could still be pursued in accordance with law. A claim for interest on the deposit at 24% per annum was treated as purely contractual, with no shown statutory basis, and was therefore not enforceable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:09:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47383 Confirmation of a statutory sale under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act supported delivery of possession of the purchased unit once the deposit was made in accordance with the sale terms, and a third-party departmental objection could not justify withholding possession. The writ court could direct delivery of possession in such circumstances, while any separate liability against the purchaser could still be pursued in accordance with law. A claim for interest on the deposit at 24% per annum was treated as purely contractual, with no shown statutory basis, and was therefore not enforceable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47383