The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed by Lemon Seeds Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., which sought the cancellation of an auction sale of attached property and a refund, asserting non-disclosure of encumbrances. The judgment clarified the MPID Act's provisions, emphasizing the differences between auctions under the MPID Act and SARFAESI Act and upholding auction conditions that mandate "as is where is" purchases.

1. Introduction and Petitioner's Claims
   The petitioner, Lemon Seeds Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., challenged the auction of property under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, claiming non-disclosure of encumbrances, and sought damages and a refund of the purchase amount with interest.

2. Legal Framework of the MPID Act
   Sections 4, 5, and 7 of the MPID Act grant the Competent Authority power to attach properties acquired with depositors' funds to safeguard depositor interests. The Competent Authority's role in managing auction sales of these assets was emphasized as distinct from the SARFAESI Act's mechanism, which deals with secured assets held by creditors.

3. Auction Process and Disclaimer Clauses
   The auction notice explicitly included "as is where is" and "caveat emptor" clauses (clauses 2.2 and 2.3). The court ruled that these clauses made the buyer responsible for due diligence, including verifying title and encumbrances.

4. Petitioner's Payments and Subsequent Claims
   The petitioner paid the entire auction amount but later sought a refund upon learning of unresolved encumbrances. The court noted that full payment was made voluntarily despite awareness of existing encumbrances.

5. Arguments on Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act
   The petitioner relied on Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing for the seller's duty to disclose material defects. However, the court held that the auction terms constituted a "contract to the contrary," exempting the seller from such disclosure obligations.

6. Court's Conclusion and Dismissal of the Petition
   Given the contract clauses and the petitioner's failure to file an appeal under Section 11 of the MPID Act, the court dismissed the writ petition. It upheld that the property sale was legally valid and denied the requested refund.

Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. MPID Act, 1999

   • Section 4: Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits.
   • Section 5: Appointment of Competent Authority.
   • Section 7: Powers of the Designated Court regarding attachment.

2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882

   • Section 55(1)(a): Seller’s duty to disclose material defects in property to the buyer (subject to contract to the contrary).

Ratio Decidendi:

The court highlighted that auctions conducted under the MPID Act have distinct legal characteristics from those under the SARFAESI Act. Here, the Competent Authority does not act as a secured creditor, and auction purchasers must undertake due diligence, especially under conditions that mandate "as is where is" terms.