IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.6526 of 2017 and WMP.No.7032 of 2017 Central Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch represented by its Chief Manager ... Petitioner v.
1. The Sub Registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai.
2. G.R.Ravichandran
3. P.K.Radhakrishnan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to register the sale certificate executed by the petitioner bank in favour of the auction purchaser by invoking SARFAESI proceedings pertaining to the property owned by the third respondent namely land and building bearing Plot No.1382 in Aringnar Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 40 comprised in R.S.No.155 Part and 161 Part of Villivakkam Village and measuring about 1 Ground and 2275 sq.ft in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.L.Ganesh For R1 : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP For R2 : Mr.G.Veerapathiran For R3 : No appearance ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to register the sale certificate executed by the petitioner bank in favour of the auction purchaser by invoking SARFAESI proceedings pertaining to the property owned by the third respondent namely land and building bearing Plot No.1382 in Aringnar Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 40 comprised in R.S.No.155 Part and 161 Part of Villivakkam Village and measuring about 1 Ground and 2275 sq.ft in accordance with law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent had obtained loan from the petitioner and had failed to repay the loan amount and hence, his account had become Non-performing Assets (NPA) in the books of accounts of the petitioner on 05.08.2011. Consequently, the property of the third respondent, which was mortgaged with the petitioner, was brought for sale under SARFAESI proceedings. In the e-auction conducted on 13.03.2017, one S.Rajasekaran, R.Vijaya and R.Kishore were declared as successful bidders and the property was sold to them. On payment of the entire sale consideration by the auction purchaser, sale certificates were issued by the petitioner bank. Thereafter, when the petitioner presented the sale certificates before the first respondent for registration, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the second respondent, who is an unsecured creditor, had obtained an order of attachment from this Court in EP.No.253 of 2014 in CS.No.677 of 2013 and based on the same, the first respondent has refused to register the sale certificates executed by the petitioner in favour of the auction purchasers. According to the petitioner, it is a settled position that the secured creditors have preference over the unsecured creditors. Since the sale certificate issued by the petitioner has not been registered by the first respondent, one of the auction purchasers by name, S.Rajasekaran filed a writ petition in WP.No.16227/2017 before this Court. By order dated 29.06.2017, the said writ petition was disposed of, by directing the respondent therein (petitioner herein) to register the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in the judgment reported in 2016 (3) CTC 493 (S.Praveen Bohra v. Joint I Sub Registrar, Coimbatore), following the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the order of attachment cannot be a bar to register the document and accordingly, directed the respondent therein to register the document and release the same to the petitioner therein. Learned counsel further submitted that the same view was followed by this Court in another unreported judgment dated 26.07.2016 in WP.No.24878 of 2016 (State Bank of India v. Inspector General of Registration and two others). Thus, learned counsel sought for similar relief in this writ petition as well.
4. Heard Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the ratio laid down by this Court in the decision reported in 2016 (3) CTC 493 (S.Praveen Bohra v. Joint I Sub Registrar, Coimbatore) and in the unreported judgment dated 26.07.2016 in WP.No.24878 of 2016 (State Bank of India v. Inspector General of Registration and two others), is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the same, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to register the sale certificate executed by the petitioner in favour of the auction purchaser, since the petitioner bank is a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.
6. In such view of the matter, I direct the first respondent to register the sale certificate executed by the petitioner in favour of the auction purchaser on payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges, as and when the document is presented for registration.
7. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.08.2017 Index: Yes/No rk NOTE: ISSUE ON 04.08.2017 To 1. The Sub Registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai.
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
rk W.P.No.6526 of 2017 02.08.2017