The core issue concerns the interplay between the SARFAESI Act and IBC, where a successful auction purchaser seeks possession of a secured asset despite an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC triggered by a personal insolvency application under Section 94. [1][2] Ownership of a secured asset under SARFAESI remains with the borrower until the sale certificate is issued under Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules, not upon auction or confirmation. [18][20][33(a)] Amendment to Section 13(8) of SARFAESI extinguishes the borrower's right of redemption upon publication of the auction sale notice under Rule 8(6), but does not transfer ownership. [19][25][33(b)] Loss of right of redemption is distinct from loss of ownership rights; ownership comprises a bundle of rights beyond mere redemption. [20][21][33(b)] Interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, effective from the date of filing the insolvency application, stays all legal proceedings or actions in respect of any debt, preventing secured creditors from accepting balance payments or issuing sale certificates post-moratorium. [10][26][27][28][33(c)] Where balance auction payments are received and sale certificate issued after interim moratorium commencement, the sale is incomplete, and the auction purchaser acquires no ownership or possession rights. [24][25][28][33(c)][33(d)][33(e)] Statutory sale process under SARFAESI Rules 8 and 9 requires full payment and issuance of sale certificate for completion; any legal bar like moratorium halts this. [17][22][33(a)] Writ petition by auction purchaser dismissed, as petitioner not owner of secured asset due to incomplete sale amid moratorium. [33][35]

Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Bank of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I.CHAGLA, FARHAN P.DUBASH
Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : G.S. Hegde, P.M. Bhansali, Arafat Siddique, Juhi Pandey
For the Respondents: Mable Soans, Shrirang Katneshwarkar, Gajendra Rajput, Shubham Kahite, Naushad Engineer, Sharad Bansal, Yohann Limathwalla

Judgement Key Points

The core issue concerns the interplay between the SARFAESI Act and IBC, where a successful auction purchaser seeks possession of a secured asset despite an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC triggered by a personal insolvency application under Section 94. [1][2]
Ownership of a secured asset under SARFAESI remains with the borrower until the sale certificate is issued under Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules, not upon auction or confirmation. [18][20][33(a)]
Amendment to Section 13(8) of SARFAESI extinguishes the borrower's right of redemption upon publication of the auction sale notice under Rule 8(6), but does not transfer ownership. [19][25][33(b)]
Loss of right of redemption is distinct from loss of ownership rights; ownership comprises a bundle of rights beyond mere redemption. [20][21][33(b)]
Interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, effective from the date of filing the insolvency application, stays all legal proceedings or actions in respect of any debt, preventing secured creditors from accepting balance payments or issuing sale certificates post-moratorium. [10][26][27][28][33(c)]
Where balance auction payments are received and sale certificate issued after interim moratorium commencement, the sale is incomplete, and the auction purchaser acquires no ownership or possession rights. [24][25][28][33(c)][33(d)][33(e)]
Statutory sale process under SARFAESI Rules 8 and 9 requires full payment and issuance of sale certificate for completion; any legal bar like moratorium halts this. [17][22][33(a)]
Writ petition by auction purchaser dismissed, as petitioner not owner of secured asset due to incomplete sale amid moratorium. [33][35]

Table of Content
1. interplay of sarfaesi act and ibc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's claim of ownership post-auction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. bank's defense against borrowers' claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. arguments of amicus curiae. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. analysis of sarfaesi act provisions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. ownership transfer upon sale certificate issuance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. impact of interim-moratorium on sales. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. final findings on ownership and petitions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
9. judgment dismissal with no costs order. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
A]	Factual overview
B]	Submissions of the Petitioner
C]	Submissions of Respondent No. 1/Bank
D]	Submissions of Respondent No. 2
E]	Submissions of Respondent No. 3
F]	Submissions of the Amicus Curiae
G]	Analysis of SARFAESI Act & SARFAESI Rules
H]	Transfer of ownership of secured asset – when complete?
I]	Decision in Indian Overseas Bank (supra)
J]	Effect of interim-moratorium
K]	Decision in Celir LLP (supra)
L]	Findings
M]	Operative Order

1. The issue before this Court relates to an interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYR.I.CHAGLA, FARHAN P.DUBASHArrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusUnion Bank of India – Respondent

Related Judgments

Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Bank of India - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1384

Usha VS Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2053

PANDIAN NALLAKANNU NAIDU VS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK – ARMB - 2021 Supreme(Guj) 953

M.K. Ravi vs Indian Bank, Royapetah Branch - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2626

Indian Overseas Bank VS RCM Infrastructure Ltd. - 2022 6 Supreme 421

Punjab National Bank vs Mohd. Abdul Kalam - 2025 Supreme(MP) 908

Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd. VS Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1208

Uco Bank Through Its Authorised Officer Gwalior Branch Old High Court Road Gwalior vs M/S Asha Oil Industries Registered Office At H.No. 56 Laxmi Bai Colony Tansen Road Gwalior Factor - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1704

UCO Bank VS Shakti Kumar Agarwal - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 289

Ajay Upadhayay S/o Shri Gajraj Prasad Upadhyay vs UCO Bank through Authorized Officer, Nehru Nagar Branch, Bhilai - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I.CHAGLA, FARHAN P.DUBASH
Arrow Business Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent