SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2053

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Nilesh Sharma, Judicial Member, Charanjeet Singh Gulati, Technical Member
Usha – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan – Respondent
IA (IBC) NO. 4216 OF 2025 IN CP (IB) NO. 218/MB/2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Supriya Majumdar
For the Respondent:AVINASH R KHANOLKAR

An auction sale under the SARFAESI Act is only complete upon the issuance of a Sale Certificate as per Rule 9(6); title does not pass to the auction purchaser merely upon payment of consideration, and therefore the asset remains part of the Corporate Debtor's pool upon CIRP commencement.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - S.14, S.18, S.60(5) - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - S.13(8) - Sale of asset - Statutory completion - Sale Certificate issuance - A successful bidder in an e-auction, who has paid the full consideration but has not received a Sale Certificate due to a pre-existing judicial stay, does not acquire title over the asset; the asset remains part of the Corporate Debtor's pool upon initiation of CIRP subject to moratorium. (Paras 36, 37, 40)

Facts of the case:
The applicant emerged as the successful bidder in an e-auction conducted by the bank for an industrial property owned by the Corporate Debtor (guarantor for a third-party borrower). Despite paying the full sale consideration, a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) stayed the issuance of the Sale Certificate. Subsequently, the Corporate Debtor entered CIRP. The applicant sought exclusion of the property from the resolution process, arguing the sale was complete.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that a sale under SARFAESI is only complete upon issuance of a Sale Certificate as per Rule 9(6). Mere extinguishment of the right of redemption does not equate to a transfer of ownership title. Since the sale was incomplete at the time of the CIRP commencement, the moratorium under S.14 prohibits further proceedings, and the asset vests with the Corporate Debtor.

Issues: Whether an auction sale is complete without a Sale Certificate and whether such an asset must be excluded from the Corporate Debtor's CIRP asset pool.

Ratio Decidendi: The amendment to S.13(8) of SARFAESI merely advances the date of extinguishment of the right of redemption but does not alter the requirement that title passes only upon the execution of a Sale Certificate. Thus, title remains with the Corporate Debtor until such certificate is issued.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. sale of property under sarfaesi requires a sale certificate for completion. (Para 1 , 18 , 19 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
2. auction proceedings amidst stay orders and subsequent cirp. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 26 , 27 , 34)
3. moratorium under section 14 prohibits enforcement of security interests after cirp commencement. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

ORDER

1. The present IA dated 19.08.2025 has been filed by Ms. Usha (‘the Applicant’), under Section 60(5) of the of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC/the Code’) with the following prayers:

a) Declare that the right, title and interest of the property being, industrial land in its name located at Khasra No. 652/1 admeasuring about 13 Bigha 7 Biswa, 10 Biswanshi and Khasra No. 652 (min) admeasuring about 8 Bigha situated at Village Khejaria, tehsil Bilsara, District Jodhpur has passed from the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant prior to commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and the Corporate Debtor;

b) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to exclude the property being, industrial land in its name located at Khasra No. 652/1 admeasuring about 13 Bigha 7 Biswa, 10 Biswanshi and Khasra No. 652 (min) admeasuring about 8 Bigha situated at Village Khejaria, tehsil Bilsara, District Jodhpur from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor and from the Information Memorandum and from any other document relating to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor;

c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Particulars of the Parties:

2. The Applicant, Ms. Usha claims itself to be a bona fide purchaser who emerged successful in a public e-auction conducted by Indian Overseas Bank.

3. The Respondent No.1, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan is the Interim Resolution Professional appointed under the Code in respect of M/s SVP Textiles Ventures Pvt. Ltd (‘Corporate Debtor’).

4. The Respondent No. 2 is Indian Overseas Bank, a secured creditor and a member of the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor.

5. Respondent No. 3 is the borrower who had availed loan facilities from the Respondent No. 2 bank in respect of which the Corporate Debtor has executed Corporate Guarantee and had further mortgaged its asset in question.

Brief Facts of the Application:

6. Respondent No. 3 namely, M/s. Srivallabh Pittie South West Industries Limited, availed credit working capital term loan facility aggerating Rs. 63 Crores from Respondent No. 2 from 2011 to 2020. The Corporate Debtor stood as a corporate Guarantor for the said loans and created 1st pari passu charge on the industrial land in its name located at Khasra No. 652/1 admeasuring about 13 Bigha 7 Biswa, 10 Biswanshi and Khasra No. 652 (min) admeasuring about 8 Bigha situated at Village Khejaria, tehsil Bilsara, District Jodhpur (‘said property’) to secure the loan. Thereafter, upon default by the Respondent No. 3 in repayment of loans, the Respondent No. 2 issued demand notice dated 24.11.2022 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

7. The Applicant submits that the Respondent No. 2 took over the possession of the said property vide notice dated 30.06.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (‘the SARFAESI Rules’).

8. Further, Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Code against the Respondent No. 3 (Borrower). Vide order 10.10.2023, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against the Respondent No. 3 was initiated and Mr. Avil Menezes was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’). The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble NCLAT vide Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1401 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2024.

9. The Applicant submits that the Res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top