RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra's new framework permanently bars banks and NBFCs from selling repossessed property back to the original defaulting borrower, closing a long-standing recovery loophole.
NEW DELHI: The Reserve Bank of India has issued new rules banning banks and NBFCs from ever selling seized real estate back to the original defaulting borrower or their related parties. The framework notified on July 16, applies to properties taken over through SARFAESI, court decrees or even bilateral out of court settlements and comes into effect from October 1 with a one-year transition window for existing cases.
At first glance this looks like a straightforward tightening of recovery rules. However the more interesting question is why such a loophole existed at all and what its closure actually changes on bank balance sheets that are, by most measures, remarkably clean already.
How the Sell-Back Loophole Actually Worked
Not every case of a bank selling seized property back to a promoter was fraudulent. In several situations the seized asset was genuinely difficult to sell to anyone else. A specialised factory or an unfinished infrastructure project often has no real buyer besides the original promoter who understands its operations and licensing. In such cases a negotiated buyback with a haircut was often the most practical way for a bank to recover at least some value quickly.
The trouble was that the same mechanism could be misused for something far less benign. A defaulting loan would be marked NPA, the bank would take over the collateral and mark the loan as settled, technically cleaning its books. The property would then be quietly sold back to a shell entity controlled by the same promoter, often funded by a brand new loan from the same bank. On paper the stressed loan had vanished and a fresh performing loan had appeared in its place. In reality the underlying risk never left, it just changed its label.
This practice effectively let promoters sidestep Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a provision specifically designed to stop defaulting owners from buying back their own bankrupt companies at a discount. By settling privately with a bank instead of going through the National Company Law Tribunal, promoters could regain control of assets that formal insolvency law was meant to keep out of their hands.
A Small Number With a Big Symbolic Weight
Given the seriousness of the topic it is worth asking how large this problem actually is in rupee terms. State Bank of India’s own disclosures offer a useful benchmark. Seized assets held in satisfaction of claims stood at roughly ₹23 crore in FY25 and have hovered in a similar narrow range for over a decade, against a balance sheet of more than ₹66 lakh crore. That works out to a fraction too small to meaningfully move any headline number.
This matters because it reframes what the new rule actually accomplishes. It is not uncovering a hidden pile of stressed assets sitting quietly on bank books. India’s gross NPA ratio is already at a multi-year low under 2% and this framework does not change that figure at all since seized properties were never counted as NPAs to begin with. What it does instead is remove a specific behavioural loophole that allowed banks to disguise unresolved credit risk as a resolved one, even if the rupee value involved was modest.
Stricter Accounting to Match the Stricter Intent
Alongside the buyback ban the RBI has tightened how these properties must be valued and disclosed. Banks must now record seized assets at the lower of the loan’s book value or an independently assessed distress sale value, with any future decline in value immediately hitting the profit and loss account while any gain must be ignored entirely. These assets must also be listed separately on the balance sheet rather than folded into vague categories like “other assets,” giving analysts and regulators clearer visibility going forward.
Banks are also required to dispose of these properties strictly through public e-auctions within seven years, in line with existing law under the Banking Regulation Act. This is significant because public auctions in India have historically struggled with poor recovery rates and long delays, often due to litigation from the very promoters contesting the seizure. Removing the buyback option changes the incentive structure here too, since promoters can no longer bank on eventually negotiating their way back into ownership through delay tactics.
Who This Actually Affects
While large public sector banks have the legal and financial capacity to absorb these compliance changes smoothly, smaller lenders may feel more pressure. Housing finance companies and small finance banks that lend heavily against property tend to take physical possession of collateral more often and have historically relied on informal buyback arrangements rather than dedicated real estate management teams. For them the requirement to mark down asset values immediately in their P&L could create sharper, more visible profitability swings than for larger banks.
A Rule About Discipline, Not Disclosure
Taken together this amendment is less about revealing something hidden in India’s banking system and more about removing a specific, well understood escape route that let defaulting promoters quietly re-enter transactions insolvency law was designed to keep them out of. The rupee amounts involved may be small but the signal to corporate borrowers is not, once a lender takes your property there is no negotiating your way back into it.
About the Author
