ASJ Finsolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Bajaj (Supreme Court of India)
10% Cap on EMD Does Not Limit Forfeiture of Further Amounts Paid by a Defaulting Auction Purchaser: Supreme Court
Bidder Misses Payment Deadline: Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Entire ₹6.39 Crore Deposit
A successful bidder in a liquidation auction cannot withhold the balance price, raise a title concern at the last moment, and then seek a refund of the money already deposited. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ASJ Finsolutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Bajaj, Civil Appeal No. 13023 of 2025, decided on 28 September 2026.
The auction and the missed deadline
The dispute concerned a parcel of land in Haryana sold during liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. ASJ Finsolutions successfully bid ₹25.56 crore, the reserve price. It paid ₹6.39 crore, comprising earnest money deposit (EMD) of ₹2.55 crore and a further ₹3.84 crore towards the sale consideration. The balance of ₹19.17 crore was payable within 30 days of the auction, or within 90 days with interest at 12% per annum.
The bidder did not pay within 30 days. On 15 December 2021, it emailed the liquidator stating that it would pay the balance with interest by 14 February 2022, the end of the 90-day period. That payment was never made. Instead, shortly before the deadline, the bidder sought prior title deeds and later relied on proceedings initiated by another party concerning the property.
