As per case facts, a company defaulted on debt, leading the Bank's Authorized Officer to conduct an e-auction of secured assets. The contesting respondent emerged as the highest bidder and ... paid the initial deposit, but failed to pay the balance even after an extended deadline, citing ongoing DRT proceedings. The Bank then cancelled the sale and forfeited the deposit. Subsequently, the Bank re-auctioned the assets for the same price. The contesting respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking a refund of the forfeited amount. The question arose whether the Bank's forfeiture was arbitrary and if the High Court was justified in directing a refund based on the principle of unjust enrichment, considering the subsequent sale. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that statutory forfeiture under the SARFAESI Act is a penal consequence for default, designed to enforce security interests and prevent manipulation, and not solely dependent on actual loss. The Court held that the subsequent sale at the same price did not amount to unjust enrichment for the Bank, emphasizing that the special law prevails over general contract principles and that courts should be reluctant to interfere with such statutory actions without clear arbitrariness or mala fides.