Allowed

M/s. Pothys, v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC3 Sept 2014WP/23574/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that an existing attachment order on a property does not justify the refusal to register a Sale Certificate under the SARFAESI Act, as registration does not extinguish the attachment but renders the document admissible in evidence. The writ was disposed of directing registration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to register the Sale Certificate and return the same within four weeks.

M/s. Pothys, Vs The Inspector General of — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

M/s. Pothys, A registered Partnership Firm, No.15, Nageshwara Rao Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 rep. By its Partner Mr.S.Murugesh ..Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The Inspector General of Registration,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 004.

¶7

The Joint I Sub Registrar,
District Registrar Office,
Coimbatore. ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in the impugned notice NO.P166/2010/B1/2014 dated 30.05.2014 and quash the same as being unsustainable in law and on facts and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated 08.11.2010 executed in favour of the petitioner and to return the said document within a time frame as may be specified by this Court.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the 2^nd respondent to register the Sale Certificate executed by the

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

Heard Mr.Om Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶13

The only reason for the 2^nd respondent refusing to register the Sale Certificate presented by the petitioner is that there is an order of attachment on the property registered in the records. But, that cannot be a ground for refusing to register the Sale Certificate. The attachment is actually to the property and it creates a charge on the property. By registering the Sale Certificate, the attachment is not actually lost or removed and it will remain on the property. Even if the petitioner seeks raising of the order of attachment, the petitioner should have a Sale Certificate registered, as otherwise, it will not be admissible in evidence before any Court.

¶14

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to register the Sale Certificate and return the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This does not mean that the attachment will go. After registration, it will be open to the petitioner to take steps for raising the order of attachment in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nv To 1. The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamilnadu, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 004. 2. The Joint I Sub Registrar, District Registrar Office, Coimbatore. 1 cc to M/s. Ramalingam Associates. ,Advocate, SR.No.41241 1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No41533 W.P. No. 23574 of 2014 rk(co)pmk.11.9.2014

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Pothys, v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Pothys, v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Vs Additional Superintendent

Smt.Chandrabai, Vs The Income Tax Officer

R.Sulochana, Vs The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance

A.Rani Vs The Superintendent

The Camera Citi, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madhavi Vs Government of Tamilnadu