Refund of the auction purchaser’s deposit rendered the writ petitions infructuous.

The petitioner had purchased the property at a public auction conducted by Karur Vysya Bank on 19 March 2021, but did not pay the balance sale consideration.

He filed two writ petitions challenging the Bank’s subsequent e-auction notice dated 16 May 2023 and a letter dated 15 May 2023, seeking, among other reliefs, registration of a sale certificate in his favour.

At the hearing, the Bank produced the petitioner’s undertaking to withdraw the petitions and submitted that it had refunded the entire amount he had deposited.

Whether anything remained for adjudication after the Bank refunded the petitioner’s deposit and the petitioner undertook to withdraw the writ petitions.

Whether the Court should determine the petitioner’s substantive challenges to the fresh auction notice and the Bank’s letter in those circumstances.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or substantive legal doctrine in its reasoning.

Although the petitions invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court disposed of them on the case-specific basis that the Bank had returned the petitioner’s entire deposit and nothing remained for further adjudication.

The petitioner’s claims arose from the 2021 auction and the Bank’s later steps concerning the property.

Once the Bank refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner, and the petitioner had undertaken to withdraw the petitions, the Court considered the underlying dispute no longer live.

It therefore did not examine the legality of the fresh auction notice, the Bank’s letter, or the requested registration of a sale certificate.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.