Decided on August 28,2019

Canara Bank, Arm Branch Appellant


M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.)In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner Bank, the challenge is to the action of the 2nd respondent-Sub Registrar, in not registering the sale certificate, dated 29.09.2018, issued under Rule 9(6) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Rules, 2002, ('Rules', for brevity) read with Section 13(2) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act of 2002', for brevity) in respect of the mortgaged properties auctioned, on 11.09.2018, in favour of the 9th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Section 35 of the Act, and Section 22(A) of the Indian Registration Act, and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution and also principles of natural justice. In the writ petition, a direction is also sought to the 2nd Respondent-Sub Registrar, to register the sale certificate.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of Sri K.Hari Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; of the learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing for respondents 1 & 2; of the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents 3 & 4; and, of Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent. I have perused the material record.
(3.)Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts necessary for consideration may be stated, in brief, are as follows: "The Bank, which is a secured creditor, for realization of its debt due from the 5th respondent, initiated proceedings under the Act of 2002; and, held e-auction, on 11.09.2018, for sale of the secured assets; eventually, the e-auction sale in respect of the auctioned properties was confirmed in favour of the 9th respondent, who was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3,06,20,000/-; and, finally a sale certificate was also issued to him, on 29.09.2018, after payment of the entire bid amount as per the law. Thereafter, the sale certificate, which was issued to the 9th respondent-auction purchaser was refused to be registered by the 2nd respondent Sub-Registrar, on the ground that there are certain arrears of Commercial Tax and the same are due and payable and that the sale certificate cannot be registered, unless the competent authority of the Commercial Tax Department issues a letter exempting payment of arrears of Commercial Tax or accords consent. The sale certificate was not registered despite the Bank issuing a letter, dated 06.11.2018, to the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate having regard to the provisions of the Act of 2002. Aggrieved thereof, the Bank filed the present writ petition."

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.