APHC010603492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1061 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-8 [3483] M/s. Star Brillian ...Petitioner Vs. State Bank of India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. K. Raghava Charyulu Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Satyanarayana Murthy CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 20th January, 2025. P C : The petitioner was the successful bidder, in an auction conducted by the Advocate Commissioner, of the property belonging to the Principal Debtor, in view of the orders of the D.R.T. Vishakhapatnam, as part of the process, to recover an amount of Rs.57,11,09,454/- in O.A. No.181 of 2018. 2. The case of the petitioner is that even when the tender process was completed in the year 2010, the D.R.T. Vishakhapatnam, confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner only on 12.01.2012, whereafter the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.10,68,20,200/- on 24.01.2012. 3. It is stated that even when the amount was deposited in January, 2012, the goods for which the bids were submitted were delivered to the petitioner 2 HCJ & RCJ WP_1061_2025 firm on 09.09.2015, after a delay of 3 years and 8 months, without the fault of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner claims that interest amounting to Rs.5,68,13,763/- had accrued on the amount deposited by the petitioner from the date of payment i.e. 24.01.2012, till the date of delivery of goods on 09.09.2015 and that the bank was not entitled to claim the same as it would amount to undue enrichment for the bank. The claim of the petitioner for interest was, however, rejected by the D.R.T. Visakhapatnam and even the appeal filed before the D.R.A.T. Kolkata, by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition. 5. The D.R.A.T. Kolkata, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the delay caused in delivery of the goods was not attributable to the bank inasmuch as it was attributable to the litigation in the High Court as also the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is stated that the petitioner could have claimed possession of the goods in question only on payment of customs duty, which was a condition prescribed under Clause 10(a) of the terms and conditions of the auction, which specifically envisaged that full sale value with taxes/duties would be paid by the tenderer. 6. It is stated that customs duty was paid by the petitioner after the dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court on 17.02.2015, whereafter possession of the goods was handed over to the appellant and the sale certificate was issued. 3 HCJ & RCJ WP_1061_2025 7. From the material on record, it appears that there was, in fact, a lot of litigation initiated by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.5753 of 2012, Writ Appeal No. 417 of 2012 filed by Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone (VSEZ), and further the matter landed up before the Apex Court, which dismissed the SLP filed by VSEZ only on 17.02.2015, whereafter the matter got finally concluded and the customs duty was paid by the petitioner herein. The delay, therefore, was certainly not attributable to the bank, but was certainly attributable to the petitioner itself, which had not paid the customs duty, which was otherwise payable in terms of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that it was on account of the delay in handing over of the goods that the amount of interest that had accrued between the period 2012 and 2015 would amount to undue enrichment, is an argument which does not appeal to us. 9. There is no material on record to suggest that the amount which was made available to the bank had been beneficially used by the bank for any other purpose or for that matter there is no material on record that the goods which were to be delivered to the petitioner in the year 2012 had depreciated in value during the interregnum and that such a delay had thus caused a loss to the petitioner and correspondingly unduly enriched the respondent bank. Moreover, the D.R.A.T. had also noticed that there was an undertaking furnished by the partner of the petitioner firm, confirming the delivery of the 4 HCJ & RCJ WP_1061_2025 diamonds, which was the subject matter of the auction and that no claims would be raised in regard thereto in future. 10. The petitioner had thus acquiesced and waived its right, if at all to claim any amount by way of any claim which would also include the claim of interest. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one taken by the D.R.A.T. Kolkata. We find no merit in the present writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN