created in its favour by the borrower had not been registered with the Central Registry. It was further argued that the amendment No. 44 of 2016 dated 16.08.2016 in Section 26(D) of the Act, came into existence with effect from 24.01.2020. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the mortgage property was registered with CERSAI in the account of M/s Naini Exports Private Limited and since M/s Shankar Ispaat Private Limited had charge over its property, therefore, there was no requirement of registration of the property with CERSAI in the name of M/s Shankar Ispaat Private Limited also. In reply to the above arguments, it was argued by Sh. Rohit Sapra Advocate that admittedly, the account of M/s Shankar Ispaat Private Limited for which the property in question had been put to sale, was not registered with CERSAI and therefore, the respondent bank had no right to enforce the security and thus, there was violation of the provisions of Section 26(D) of the Act. Admittedly, the property belongs to Naini Exporters which had been mortgaged for two loan accounts. First charge was with the M/s Naini Exports Private Limited and second charge was with M/s Shankar Ispaat Private Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the registration of the property with CERSAI for the account of M/s Shankar Ispaat Private Limited, was sine qua non and that not being so, all cannot be said to be well with the sale in question in terms of section 26(D) of the Act.
