In a stark reminder of the risks lurking in the seemingly lucrative world of bank auctions, a Mumbai-based company has been denied possession of a premium residential flat it purchased for Rs 9.12 crore, even after depositing the full amount and securing a sale certificate. The Bombay High Court’s ruling on December 10, 2025, in Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. highlights the precarious interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). For bargain-hunting homebuyers, this case serves as a red flag: due diligence isn’t just advisable—it’s essential.
The saga unfolds against the backdrop of a defaulting borrower’s last-minute pivot to personal insolvency, triggering a moratorium that derailed the auction process. While bank auctions promise properties at 20-30% below market value, they come loaded with legal landmines, especially when debtors invoke IBC protections.
The Auction and Payment Saga: A Smooth Start Turns Sour
The story begins in April 2023, when Vandana Chaudhari and her husband Ravindra Chaudhari—co-owners of a luxurious 2BHK flat in the El Castillo building, Nerul West, Navi Mumbai—defaulted on a Rs 49.33 crore loan from Union Bank of India. The flat, valued at a reserve price of Rs 9.12 crore, was mortgaged as collateral.
Under the SARFAESI Act, the bank swiftly moved: issuing a demand notice in April 2023, taking symbolic possession in September 2023, and securing a court order for physical possession in November 2024. By May 9, 2025, the bank published an auction notice under Rule 8(6) of the SARFAESI Rules, inviting bids for the 2,000 sq ft sea-facing apartment.
On May 30, 2025, Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. emerged victorious with a bid matching the reserve price. The company wasted no time, depositing the entire Rs 9.12 crore in tranches: Rs 91 lakh on auction day, followed by Rs 1.37 crore the next, and the balance in six installments between June 18 and 20. On June 20, the bank issued the sale certificate under Rule 9(6), ostensibly sealing the deal. The petitioner, confident in its “vested right,” approached the court when the bank hesitated to hand over physical possession.
At this point, everything appeared textbook. Bank auctions are designed for efficiency—buyers get clear title free of encumbrances, or so the narrative goes.
The Twist: Personal Insolvency Filing and the Moratorium Trap
Enter the plot twist. On June 9, 2025—just nine days after the auction but before the final payments and sale certificate—Vandana Chaudhari filed a personal insolvency application under Section 94 of the IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai. This triggered an automatic interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC, halting all legal proceedings against her assets, including the flat.
Crucially, five of the eight payment tranches (totaling over Rs 8 crore) were deposited after this date, and the sale certificate followed suit on June 20. The Chaudharis, now under the resolution professional’s oversight, argued that the moratorium froze the SARFAESI process, rendering subsequent steps void. The bank and petitioner countered that the borrowers’ redemption rights had lapsed with the auction notice (per a 2016 SARFAESI amendment), and the moratorium couldn’t retroactively unwind a completed sale.
The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai, sidestepped the fray in July 2025, disposing of the borrowers’ challenge by deferring to the NCLT, citing the ongoing moratorium.
Bombay High Court’s Verdict: Ownership Doesn’t Transfer Until Sale Certificate
In a 39-page judgment delivered by Justices R.I. Chagla and Farhan P. Dubash, the court dissected the legal clash with surgical precision. Appointing Senior Advocate Naushad Engineer as amicus curiae, the bench analyzed prior Supreme Court rulings like Indian Overseas Bank vs. M/s. Jalan Kalrock Consortium (2023) and Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. (2024).
Key holdings:
- Right to Redeem vs. Ownership Transfer: The 2016 amendment to Section 13(8) of SARFAESI extinguishes a borrower’s redemption right upon the auction notice’s publication. However, ownership vests only upon the sale certificate’s issuance under Rule 9(6)—not earlier.
- Moratorium’s Overriding Effect: The IBC’s interim moratorium under Section 96 is broader than the corporate moratorium under Section 14, staying “all legal actions or proceedings” against the debtor’s assets. This includes SARFAESI enforcement post-filing, invalidating the bank’s acceptance of delayed payments and the June 20 sale certificate.
- Incomplete Sale Process: Since the auction’s confirmation hinged on full payment and certification—both post-moratorium—the sale was incomplete. The petitioner acquired no enforceable rights, and the resolution professional (RP) now controls the asset for creditor distribution.
The operative order: Writ petition dismissed, no costs. The flat remains under NCLT’s purview; the petitioner must seek refunds from the bank, potentially with interest, but possession is off the table.
The court harmonized the laws by prioritizing IBC’s rehabilitative intent over SARFAESI’s creditor-centric speed, cautioning that “the moratorium acts as a shield, not a sword.”
Why This Happened: The SARFAESI-IBC Legal Quagmire
At its core, this ruling underscores a timing trap. SARFAESI empowers banks to auction secured assets swiftly, but IBC’s moratorium—triggered by a simple application—creates a firewall. Borrowers can file post-auction but pre-certification, stalling transfers. The 2016 SARFAESI tweak closed redemption loopholes but left ownership hinging on the certificate, exposing buyers to IBC interventions.
As the amicus noted, this isn’t debtor gamesmanship but a statutory safeguard. Yet, for auction winners, it’s a gut punch: full payment doesn’t guarantee title if moratoriums lurk.
Cautions for Aspiring Buyers: Don’t Bid Blindly
Bank auctions allure with discounts—properties often fetch 25-40% less than market rates—but pitfalls abound:
- Verify IBC Filings: Scan NCLT records for personal/corporate insolvency applications before bidding. A post-auction filing can torpedo deals.
- Insist on Pre-Paid Confirmation: Push banks for immediate full payment and certification to minimize moratorium windows.
- Legal Due Diligence: Hire experts to probe encumbrances, co-owner consents (here, only one spouse filed, complicating the 50% undivided share), and DRT/NCLT statuses.
- Litigation Risk: Even “clear title” certificates can be challenged; factor in 6-12 months of delays.
- Refund Realities: Courts may order repayments with interest, but recovering from banks amid NPAs is no picnic.
Real estate experts advise: Treat auctions like high-stakes poker—bluffing debtors hold aces.
Market Context: Thousands of Auction Properties Hit the Block Yearly
Bank auctions are booming amid rising NPAs. Recent statistics paint a vivid picture: Public sector banks list over 3,000 properties for auction at any given time on platforms like the Indian Banks’ Association Property Information (IBAPI). In 2020, State Bank of India alone e-auctioned more than 1,000 assets in a single mega drive. By 2025, the BAANKNET platform has tripled e-auction volumes, boosting success rates from 9% to 14.7%, per Business Standard reports. With NPAs hovering at 5-6% of advances (RBI data), experts estimate 10,000-15,000 properties enter the auction pipeline annually across residential, commercial, and industrial segments— a goldmine for savvy buyers, but a minefield for the unwary.
This Mumbai flat’s fate isn’t isolated; it’s a wake-up call in a Rs 50,000 crore annual auction market. As IBC filings surge (over 10,000 personal insolvencies in FY25), buyers must navigate with eyes wide open—or risk losing more than just the bid.
Also Read: Wish To Buy A Bank Auction Property Read This First
