Telangana High Court
M/S. My Home Infrastructure Private … vs The State Of Telangana, on 2 May, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITOIN Nos. 26832 AND 27310 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER
The issues involved and the reliefs sought in the present writ
petitions are similar. Therefore, they are being decided together
vide the present common order.
2. Heard Sri E.Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Ms. E.Anisha Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.No.27310 of 2024, Sri M.Hareesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26832 of 2024 and
Sri A.Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing for
respondents.
3. The brief facts are that Respondent No. 2 had issued an e-
auction notification dated 04.08.2023 for sale of 17 open plots in
Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal. In the said e-auction
notification, Respondent No. 2 advertised that the plots offered for
sale were owned by the Government of Telangana and were ‘100%
encumbrance free’. The notification stated that the earnest money
deposit was Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (three crore only) and the first
2
installment (33% of the sale amount) was to be paid within 07 days
of the date of issuance of letter of offer and the second and final
installment (the balance sale amount) was to be paid within 30
(thirty) days from the date of auction. Clause 14 (ii) of the Special
Terms and Conditions (annexed to the e-auction notification) stated
that a pre-final letter would be issued after the full and final
payment of the sale amount. Likewise, Clause 14 (iii) stated that
after the issuance of the pre-final letter, the authorised
representative of the Respondents will undertake the process of
conveyance and execute a sale deed in favour of the successful
bidders.
4. Pursuant to the said e-auction notification, the Petitioners
herein participated in the auction on 10.08.2023 and submitted
their respective bids.
5. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 offered a bid
amount of Rs. 33,75,00,000/- (thirty-three crores seventy-five lakhs
only) per acre and she was selected as the highest bidder in relation
to Plot No. 14 which admeasured 16.13 acres. The total sale price
in relation to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 for Plot No.
3
14 was Rs. 206,88,75,000/- (two hundred and six crores eighty-
eight lakhs seventy-five thousand only). According to the terms of
the e-auction notification, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter of offer
dated 11.08.2023 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024. On
18.08.2023, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 paid the first
installment of Rs. 68,27,28,750/- (sixty-eight crore twenty-seven
lakhs twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty only). This
was followed by Respondent No. 2 issuing a confirmation-cum-
allotment letter dated 22.08.2023 with a condition to pay the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 135,61,46,250/- (one hundred and
thirty-five crores sixty-one lakhs forty-six thousand two hundred
and fifty only) within a period of 30 (thirty) days. The Petitioner in
W.P. No. 26832 of 2024 paid the balance sale amount on
08.09.2023. Respondent No. 2 issued a pre-final allotment dated
07.10.2023 letter which confirmed the receipt of the entire sale
consideration by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 26832 of 2024.
6. Likewise, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 offered
a bid of Rs. 41,75,00,000/- (forty-one crores seventy-five lakhs
only) per acre and was selected as the highest bidder in relation to
4
Plot No. 15 which admeasured 7.16 acres. The total sale price in
relation to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 for Plot No. 15
was Rs. 298,93,00,000/- (two hundred and ninety-eight crores
ninety-three lakhs only). According to the terms of the e-auction
notification, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter of offer dated
11.08.2023 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024. On
18.08.2023, the Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of 2024 paid the first
installment of Rs. 98,64,69,000/- (ninety-eight crores sixty-four
lakhs sixty-nine thousand only). Respondent No. 2 issued a
confirmation-cum-allotment letter dated 22.08.2023 confirming the
payment of the first installment and stating that the balance sale
consideration of Rs. 197,28,31,000/- (one hundred and ninety-
seven crores twenty-eight lakhs thirty-one thousand only) shall be
paid within 30 (thirty) days. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 27310 of
2024 paid the balance sale amount on 08.09.2023. Respondent No.
2 issued a pre-final allotment dated 07.10.2023 letter which
confirmed the receipt of the entire sale consideration by the said
Petitioner.
5
7. While the conveyance and handing over of the plots viz.,
Plot No. 14 and Plot No. 15 was pending, both the Petitioners
allege that, they got to know that the plots sold to them were under
litigation. Both the Petitioners state that on 08.08.2023 i.e., two
days before the e-auction, a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 21467 of
2023 was filed by one Korani Ravinder and his brother seeking
stay of the e-auction. In the said writ petition, the said Ravinder
and his brother claimed that they were the owners of land
admeasuring 4.19 acres in Sy. No. 288/4. According to the
Petitioners, Sy. No. 288/4 falls in Plot Nos. 14 and 15 which were
purchased by them. On 09.08.2023 i.e., one day before the auction,
a learned single judge of this Court passed an interim order in W.P.
No. 21467 of 2023 permitting the e-auction to happen subject to
Respondent No. 2 making an endorsement on the ‘sale allotment
letter’ that the sale in respect of Plot Nos. 14 and 15 will be
confirmed subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. The
relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:
Accordingly, respondent authorities can go ahead with
the e-auction proposed to be held on 10.08.2023,
however the respondent authorities are directed to
6make an endorsement on the sale allotment letter in
respect of the Plots Nos.14 and 15 stating that the said
plots will be confirmed subject to the outcome of this
writ petition.
8. After receiving information about the pending writ
petition, the Petitioners addressed multiple representations to
Respondent No. 2 seeking refund of the full amounts paid by them
along with 18% interest. In response to their representations,
Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated 09.11.2023 acknowledging
the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and assured them that if
any unfavourable orders were passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 by
March 2024 or earlier, they would refund the entire amount with
interest. The relevant portion of the letter dated 09.11.2023 is
extracted below:
In this regard, it is to inform that the title and
possession of the petitioner(s) has not proved at all and
the said land is under the custody of HMDA since 26-
12-2007 and with regard to the above Writ Petition, the
HMDA entrusted the matter to the Advocate General
owing to the importance of the Layout and necessary
possible steps will be taken for dismissal of the above
Writ Petition at the earliest preferably before March,
2024.
7
However, on careful examination of your
representation submitted vide reference 7 cited, it is to
inform that, if any unfavorable orders issued in this
matter latest by March, 2024 or earlier, the
HMDA/Government will refund the total sale price
paid by you in respect of the above plot along with
admissible interest
9. Despite the above assurance, W.P. No. 21467 of 2023
remained pending. The Petitioners addressed representations but
received no response. Therefore, they have filed the present writ
petitions seeking a full refund of the payments made by them along
with an interest of 18% per annum.
10. The Petitioners contend that Respondent No. 2 has acted
contrary to the advertisement and e-auction notification which
promised sale of unencumbered land. They contend that W.P. No.
21467 of 2023 was filed before the auction dated 10.08.2023.
Therefore, Respondent No. 2 ought to have informed them about
the pending litigation. Further, they contend that Respondent No. 2
had suppressed the factum of pending W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and
the order dated 09.08.2023. According to them, Respondent No. 2
obtained full payments running into crores of rupees without
informing them about the litigation. The Petitioners term the action
8
of Respondent No. 2 as illegal and arbitrary. They seek refund of
the amounts paid by them along with an interest of 18% per
annum.
11. In response to the contentions of the Petitioners,
Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition. It contended that in contractual
matters, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. It
further contended that there was no suppression of either the
pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 or the order dated 09.08.2023.
The order copy of order dated 09.08.2023 was received by their
office only on 24.08.2023. Therefore, it could not inform about the
pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 or about the order dated
09.08.2023.
12. Arguendo, Respondent No. 2 contends that the order
dated 09.08.2023 only states that the endorsement should be made
on the ‘sale allotment letter’ which only comes at a later stage i.e.,
after payment of money and issuance of pre-final allotment letter.
Further, as on the date of the issuance of e-auction notification i.e.,
04.08.2023, the property was free from encumbrances and
9
litigation. Therefore, it was argued that the property was
unencumbered when the advertisement was made. Another
contention of Respondent No. 2 was that the property was sold on
‘as is where is’ basis and the principles of caveat emptor and
estoppel apply.
13. The only question before this Court is whether the
actions of Respondent No. 2 entitle the Petitioners to resile from
the sale transaction and claim a refund.
14. Before deciding the said question, this Court would like
to deal with the preliminary objection concerning the
maintainability of the present writ petition. It is trite law that while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Courts shall be slow in interfering with contractual
matters concerning the Government. However, in cases where the
State has acted in an arbitrary or unfair or irrational manner or has
failed to act reasonably, a writ petition will be maintainable. In this
regard, it is relevant to note the following paragraphs of Unitech
Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corpn.1:
1
(2021) 16 SCC 35.
10
39.4. If the State instrumentality violates its
constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly
and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of
Article 226 of the Constitution would lie. This
principle was recognised in ABL International [ABL
International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.
of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] : (ABL International
case [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit
Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] ,
SCC p. 572, para 28)
“28. However, while entertaining an objection as to
the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in
mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs
under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in
nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the
Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts
of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to
entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon
itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power.
(See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) And this plenary right of the High
Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be
exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other
available remedies unless such action of the State or its
instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to
violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for
other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court
thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
39.5. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226, the Court is entitled to enquire
into whether the action of the State or its
instrumentalities is arbitrary or unfair and in
consequence, in violation of Article 14. The
jurisdiction under Article 226 is a valuable
constitutional safeguard against an arbitrary
exercise of State power or a misuse of authority.
11
39.6. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction
should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court
must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact
which would depend upon an evidentiary determination
requiring a trial. But equally, it is well settled that the
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only
on the basis that the dispute pertains to the
contractual arena. This is for the simple reason that
the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt
from the duty to act fairly merely because in their
business dealings they have entered into the realm
of contract. Similarly, the presence of an arbitration
clause does (sic not) oust the jurisdiction under Article
226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from
case to case as to whether recourse to a public law
remedy can justifiably be invoked.
39.7. The jurisdiction under Article 226 was rightly
invoked by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case, when the
foundational representation of the contract has
failed. Tsiic, a State instrumentality, has not just
reneged on its contractual obligation, but hoarded the
refund of the principal and interest on the consideration
that was paid by Unitech over a decade ago. It does not
dispute the entitlement of Unitech to the refund of its
principal.
15. In view of the above decision and the reasons stated in
the following paragraphs this Court holds that the State i.e.,
Respondent No. 2 herein has acted unfairly and arbitrarily.
Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.
16. It is not disputed that Respondent No. 2 had advertised
that all the properties were owned by the Government of Telangana
12
and were free from all encumbrances. The offer to sell was
intrinsically linked with the guarantee that the subject plots were
litigation free. It is only reasonable for the prospective bidders like
the present Petitioners to believe that the title over the properties is
clear, more so when huge amounts are sought to be invested.
Keeping this in mind, this Court would like to point out certain
dates.
17. On 04.08.2023, the e-auction notification was released.
The e-auction was to be conducted on 10.08.2023. W.P. No. 21467
of 2023 was filed on 08.08.2023 and an interim order was passed
on 09.08.2023. The said interim order notes that Respondent No. 2
was duly represented by its standing counsel. Therefore,
Respondent No. 2 cannot contend that they were not aware of the
order or the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 till they received
the order copy i.e., on 24.08.2023 cannot be accepted.
18. At this stage, it is apt to note that as stated supra, Sri
Korani Ravinder and his brother filed the aforesaid W.P.No.21467
of 2023 challenging the proposed auction scheduled on 10.08.2023.
This Court granted interim order dated 09.08.2023, after hearing
13
Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd
respondent.
19. In W.P.No.21467 of 2023, Sri B.Kishan Rao, Estate
Officer of HMDA (Respondent No.2 herein) filed counter affidavit
stating that on 09.08.2023, they have received e-mail from their
Standing Counsel i.e. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, informing them of
filing of W.P.No.21467 of 2023 and order passed by this Court that
the auction is scheduled on 10.08.2023 will be subject to the result
of the Writ petition. It was further informed that further steps after
auction may be taken after perusal of copy of the said order.
20. It is further contended that the interim order dated
09.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.21467 of 2023 was not received by
2nd respondent till the time of issuance of letter of offers/allotments
to the H.1 Bidders on 11.08.2023. However, on receipt of the said
order, it was informed to the successful bidders.
21. In the light of the same, 2nd respondent cannot contend
that they are not aware of the order dated 09.08.2023 in
W.P.No.21467 of 2023. The said contention of 2nd respondent
cannot accepted.
14
22. It is also apt to note that petitioners herein are into real
estate business. It is their specific contention that they have
participated in the auction for the purpose of development of the
subject property into flats/villas on obtaining permission from the
authorities concerned. Therefore, necessarily they have to register
themselves in terms of Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Section 3 (1) of the Act, 2016 says no
promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale or
invite persons in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the
case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning
area, without registering a real estate project with the Real
Regulatory Authority established under this Act. As per Section
3(2) of the Act, where the area of land proposed to be developed
exceeds 500 sq.meters, the promoter shall necessarily register with
RERA. Section 4 deals with application for registration of real
estate project and it has to disclose all the pending litigations.
23. As per Rule 3(B) of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules 2017, the promoter shall
disclose pending cases/litigation if any on the subject property and
15
as per Rule 3(B) (2) of the Rules, the promoter shall necessarily
declare that it has clear title in respect of the subject property.
24. In the light of the same, petitioners cannot be expected to
participate in the auction to purchase the property which is in
litigation. Petitioners cannot be expected to purchase litigation by
paying huge money. It is also the specific contention of the
petitioners that they have quoted the aforesaid price believing that
the subject property is free from litigation / unencumbered.
25. Being aware of the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023
and the order dated 09.08.2023, Respondent No. 2 was bound to
disclose the same to the Petitioners herein. Instead of informing the
Petitioners at the earliest, Respondent No. 2 remained mute and
accepted full payments running into crores. It was only after the
Petitioners herein wrote to Respondent No. 2, that the pendency of
W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 and the order dated 09.08.2023 was
acknowledged.
26. Even if this Court accepts the argument of Respondent
No. 2 that they got to know about W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 only on
16
24.08.2023, this Court cannot hold that the Petitioners are not
entitled for a refund and have to necessarily wait till the disposal of
W.P. No. 21467 of 2023. As stated above, one of the essential terms
of the e-auction and sale was that the property would be free from
litigation. It was before the auction that W.P. No. 21467 of 2023
was filed. Further, the averments in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 show
that the Petitioners therein claims to be in possession of the land
falling in Plots Nos. 14 and 15. They also seem to claim that the
land in question is an assigned land and that he has documentary
proof in the form of assignment proceedings, pattadar passbook
and title deed. Bona fide purchasers like the present Petitioners
cannot be expected to invest money and be subjected to what
seems like a long-drawn litigation involving third parties.
27. Respondent No. 2, arguendo, contended that the order
dated 09.08.2023 stated that the endorsement should be made on
‘sale allotment letter’ and therefore, Respondent No. 2 was not
bound to inform about W.P. No. 21467 of 2023. The said argument
is puerile to say the least. As stated above, one of the main points
of advertisement was that the plots were free from litigation.
17
Therefore, as a seller and moreover as a State instrumentality,
Respondent No. 2 was to inform the Petitioners about the pending
litigation at the earliest.
28. There is another reason why the actions of Respondent
No. 2 are arbitrary. As seen from the extracted portion of the letter
dated 09.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 itself had stated that necessary
steps will be taken to get W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 dismissed by
March 2024. The said letter also stated that if any unfavourable
orders are passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023, the entire money will
be refunded. Admittedly, W.P. No. 21467 of 2023 is still pending.
2nd respondent herein filed counter in the said writ petition only on
08.09.2023 and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, filed counter on
05.09.2023 and additional counter only on 18.10.2024. Therefore,
having stated that the money will be refunded in the absence of a
favourable outcome, Respondent No. 2 cannot continue to
withhold the payments made by the Petitioners.
29. At this juncture, this Court would like to express its
dismay over Respondent No. 2’s arguments in relation to the letter
dated 09.11.2023. Respondent No. 2 contended that as no
18
‘unfavourable orders’ are passed in W.P. No. 21467 of 2023, the
amount cannot be refunded in terms of the letter dated 09.11.2023.
The argument of Respondent No. 2 seems to suggest that till
unfavourable orders are passed, they will not refund the payments
made by the Petitioners. The said argument cannot be accepted. As
stated above, the Petitioners cannot be expected to wait and part
with such huge sums of money till a pending litigation, of which
they were not aware, is resolved.
30. The other argument of Respondent No. 2 was that the
subject plots were sold on ‘as is where is’ basis. Therefore, the
principle of caveat emptor will apply and the Petitioners having
satisfied themselves regarding the suitability of the properties
cannot challenge the auction sale. The said argument, which at the
first blush seems convincing, is untenable. Even if the subject plots
were sold on ‘as is where is’ basis, the Petitioners could not have
known about the pendency of W.P. No. 21467 of 2023.
31. Further, the ‘as is where is’ clause in Annexure II of the
e-auction notification deals with the physical aspects and suitability
19
of land. It does not speak of cautioning the buyer regarding any
encumbrances. The said clause is extracted below:
8. The open plot notified for sale will be sold through
e-Auction on “as is where is” basis. Hence the bidders
should inspect the lots / open plots and satisfy
themselves in all aspects before bidding, as otherwise it
is deemed that the bidder has inspected the land
parcel(s) and satisfied himself/herself regarding the
suitability of plots in all respects for construction and
no claims of any nature are maintainable against
HMDA/SELLER.
32. It is relevant to note that where State or its
instrumentalities are involved in the auctioning properties, there is
a presumption that such properties are free from encumbrances.
There is also a reasonable and legitimate expectation that
encumbrances, if any, will be informed to the participants in the
auction. The State when participates in a commercial activity is
expected to act like a scrupulous businessman. The commercial
considerations should be balanced with the duty to act fairly.
Bonafide auction purchasers cannot be made to run from pillar to
post to enjoy the fruits of the property. Likewise, where the
property was not free from encumbrances and the same was never
informed to the buyer or where the buyer was not cautioned about
the possibility of existing encumbrances, the State shall refund the
20
payments made by such a buyer. Using ‘as is where is’ clauses to
try to sell encumbered properties does not bode-well for the State.
In this regard, the following paragraphs of Mandava Krishna
Chaitanya v. UCO Bank2, are relevant:
23. Further, the concept of ‘as is where is’ and ‘as is
what is’ basis has lost its significance in the current
commercial milieu and the principle of caveat
venditor is more on the rise as compared to the
outdated principle of caveat emptor. The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, requires the seller to own up to
certain duties and it is not open to a responsible
bank to take an innocent auction purchaser for a
ride by selling to him a tainted property and
thereafter claim protection under the principles of
‘buyer beware’. The counter-affidavit filed by the
bank clearly demonstrates that the bank undertook no
exercise whatsoever to verify and ascertain as to what
encumbrances attached to the subject property at any
stage. No details are forthcoming of any efforts having
been made by the bank, be it before the registration
authorities or any other authority at any stage. Now, it
has come to light that the property in question is tainted
on grounds more than one. It falls within the full tank
level of a lake and, surprisingly, it is also treated as a
ceiling surplus land. That apart, the possession of the
property cannot even be handed over by the bank to the
petitioner as the sale was effected without the bank
securing actual physical possession thereof and the
bank does not deny the factum of a lease having been
created by the borrower in relation thereto. The bank
therefore cannot comply with the statutory mandate of
delivering actual possession of the property sold under
the sale certificate. The decisions of various Courts2
2018 SCC OnLineHyd 196.
21
referred to supra would come to the aid of the
petitioner in this regard. That apart, the registration
authorities already indicated to the petitioner that the
subject land is noted as a ceiling surplus land.
Therefore, even if they do entertain the sale certificate
issued by the bank for registration, it would be subject
to this cloud and would not amount to clear
conveyance of title. It is therefore manifest that the
bank made the innocent petitioner a victim by failing to
exercise due diligence, not only in terms of the
statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules
of 2002, but also in its own commercial interest, let
alone public interest, when it accepted this property as
security for the loan sanctioned by it. This utter
carelessness on the part of the bank in sanctioning
loans, by use of public monies, on the strength of
secured assets which are not even worthy of being
mortgaged, requires to be deprecated in the strongest
terms. Banks necessarily have to exercise more care
and caution while using public monies available with
them, be it through deposits by customers or otherwise,
when sanctioning loans without caution or worse and
cannot be permitted to claim protection under outdated
legal principles so as to victimize innocent auction
purchasers, such as the petitioner. This Court therefore
has no hesitation in holding that the auction sale held
by the bank, without even exercising minimum care to
ascertain the encumbrances attaching to the subject
property and without informing the petitioner or other
bidders of the same, vitiates the sale proceedings,
culminating in issuance of the sale certificate which is
yet to be registered.
33. Therefore, this Court holds that Respondent No. 2 failed
to act in a fair and reasonable manner. The Petitioners are entitled
to a full refund of the amounts paid by them. In Mandava Krishna
22
Chaitanya (supra), uniform rate of interest in like cases was noted
to be 18% per annum. The Petitioners are entitled to the same from
the date of deposit till the date of realization.
34. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ
petitions are allowed and the following directions are passed:
i. In W.P. No. 26832 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 is
directed to refund the total amount of
Rs.206,88,75,000/- (two hundred and six crores
eighty-eight lakhs seventy-five thousand only) along
with 18% interest per annum from the date of deposit
till the date of realization;
ii. In W.P. No. 27310 of 2024, Respondent No. 2 is
directed to refund the total amount of
Rs. 298,93,00,000/- (two hundred and ninety-eight
crores ninety-three lakhs only) along with 18%
interest per annum from the date of deposit till the
date of realization;
23
iii. Respondent No. 2 shall refund the said amounts
within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:02.05.2025.
vvr
[ad_1]
Source link