between the parties and advance is made by the purchaser to the seller, then either of the parties cannot go back from the said sale and if the purchaser goes back, the advance made by him is forfeited by the seller and the seller is also bound to sell the property as agreed to be sold. The similar provision has also been given in Rule 9(5) of the Rules, 2002, wherein it is stated “in default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposit shall be forfeited…”. Thus, the object of the Act and rules made there under is that if the sale is finalized and 25% of the amount is deposited in view of the Rule 9 (3) of Rules, 2002, no party can go back because after deposition of 25% of the sale amount, the right of the auction purchaser is accrued over the property and the Bank is bound to confirm the sale. In the present case, the auction was conducted on 30.09.2020 and 25% of the bid amount was deposited after declaration of highest bidder, therefore, the Bank cannot go back from the said sale and was bound to confirm the sale informing the purchaser to deposit balance 75% of the sale amount within 15 days in view of the Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002, but the Bank did not do so, instead cancelled the said auction sale on the ground that there was some defect in its process, which is impermissible in law. Thus the finding of the Tribunal below that the Bank was entitled to withdraw the auction proceedings is contrary to the facts of the case, hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
