property. The sale of property consequent to a default of debt and the attempt of the borrower to stall the auction by filing an application under the SARFAESI Act is definitely not an encumbrance about which the auction purchaser could not have known with due diligence. The order to return of advance on failure to pay the balance sale consideration because of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Supreme Court is no reason to return the amount in the instant case. It is also pertinent to note that in the decision relied upon By the Ld. Counsel, The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also observed that subsequently the fresh auction had taken place and the property has been sold. It was also not the case of the Respondent Bank that in the subsequent sale, a lesser amount is received. Thus, as such, there is no loss caused to the Respondent Bank. Hence, the said decision would not help the Appellant in any manner. That apart, it is also pertinent to note that even after being informed about the condition imposed by the DRT, The Appellant was ready to proceed with the auction sale. He had, in fact, also sought an extension of time which was refused by the Bank and had also asked the Respondent to restore the security over the property to protect the plant and machinery. The Respondent Bank has stated that the property was subsequently sold for a lesser price because the plant and machinery had got rusted and spoiled, and resultantly, much loss was sustained to the Bank. Had the Bank been successful in selling the property at a higher price and had the entire loan transaction been satisfied by such a sale, there was justification in saying that this is a case of unjust enrichment. By the subsequent sale, the Bank sustained a loss and therefore, there is no
