Liquidation auction dues must be paid despite disclosed title disputes where sale is on an "as is where is" basis.

In a liquidation auction sold on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, a successful bidder cannot refuse to pay the balance sale consideration merely because title disputes or related litigation remain pending. Where the auction notice discloses encumbrances and litigation, the bidder is expected to conduct its own due diligence before bidding. The payment timetable under Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 is treated as mandatory, and a third-party writ petition or suit does not excuse non-compliance with that schedule. On that reasoning, rejection of the bidder's application to withhold payment was justified in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the successful auction bidder could refuse to deposit the balance sale consideration on the ground of pending title disputes and non-production of original sale deeds, and whether rejection of its application was justified.

Analysis: The successful bidder had been notified through the e-auction material that the property was being sold on an "as is where is" and "as is what is" basis, with specific disclosure of existing litigation and related title issues. The bidder was therefore expected to undertake its own due diligence before participating in the auction. The balance payment timeline under Schedule I of the Liquidation Process Regulations, 2016 was treated as statutory and mandatory. A third-party writ petition or suit concerning the property did not absolve the bidder from complying with the payment schedule, particularly when the auction terms had already disclosed the relevant encumbrance and dispute.

Conclusion: The bidder had no valid ground to withhold the balance sale consideration, and rejection of its application was / justified in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a liquidation auction, where the sale is on an "as is where is" basis and the auction notice discloses pending litigation, the successful bidder must comply with the statutory payment timeline; disclosed title disputes do not excuse non-payment of the balance consideration.

---