Allowed

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP/23164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal by Sub Registrar to register a sale certificate from HDFC Bank to an auction purchaser. Court held prior charge by petitioner overrides subsequent attachment by fourth respondent and allowed registration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication set aside; direction to 1st respondent to register sale certificate within three weeks.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs The Sub Registrar — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶7

HDFC Bank Ltd., Department for Special Operations, Prince Khushal Towers, 7^th Floor, B-Wing, No.96, Anna Salai, Chennai -600 002. Rep. By its Authorized Officer, Mr.S.Sunder ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Sub Registrar, Pondicherry Sub Registrar Office, Kamaraj Salai, Sakthi Nagar, Saram, Puducherry – 605 013.

¶10

2.M/s.Manakular Automobiles,

¶11

Rep. By its Proprietor Mr.C.Djanardane, RS.No.49, No.1, Cuddalore Main Road, Ariyankuppam, Pondicherry – 605 007.

¶12

3.C.Djanardane

¶13

4.Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Cuddalore Branch, Rep. By its Branch Manager, No.19, Siva Complex, Block No.8, Ward No.6, Imperial Road, Cuddalore – 607 002.

5.M.Trishna Vaishali

... Respondents

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶19

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent under his proceedings bearing pending document P.No.667/2022, dated 05.08.2022 and to quash the same as erroneous, illegal and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated 05.08.2022 (Pending document P.No.667/2022) issued by the petitioner bank to and in favour of the 5^th respondent/Auction Purchaser Mrs.M.Trishna Vaishali, within a time frame and for a consequential direction to efface/delete the encumbrance attachment entry dated 28.12.2018 in Doc.No.26677/1/2018 on the file of the 1^st respondent /Sub Registrar, Puducherry, as against the property mentioned in the Schedule to the Sale Certificate dated 05.08.2022.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan Government Advocate for R1

¶22

: Mr.N.K.S.Rukmangathan for R4

¶23

: No appearance for R5

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent under his proceedings bearing pending document P.No.667/2022, dated 05.08.2022 and to quash the same as erroneous, illegal and consequently to direct the 1^st respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated 05.08.2022 (Pending Document No. P.No.667/2022) issued by the petitioner Bank to and in favour of the 5^th respondent/Auction Purchaser Mrs.M.Trishna Vaishali, within a time frame

¶26

2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶28

and for a consequential direction to efface/delete the encumbrance attachment entry dated 28.12.2018 in Doc.No.26677/1/2018 on the file of

¶29

the 1^st respondent /Sub Registrar, Puducherry, as against the property mentioned in the Schedule to the Sale Certificate dated 05.08.2022.

¶30

The property pertaining to Pending Document No.667/2022 on the file of the 1^st respondent belongs to originally the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents who deposited the title deeds to the petitioner Bank at the earliest and got advancement.

¶31

Subsequently the 4^th respondent Bank attached the said property for repayment of loan by the very same 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and based on such attachment, they already registered the order of attachment with the Sub Registrar office concerned, based on which when subsequently the 5^th respondent who purchased the property by way of auction sale conducted by the petitioner Bank approached the 1^st respondent Sub Registrar for registration of the Sale Certificate, that has been refused through the impugned order of the 1^st respondent on the ground that, the property in question already been attached with the 4^th respondent Bank that is how this

¶32

3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶34

writ petition has come up against such refusal order made by the 1^st respondent against the said pending Document No.667/2022.

¶35

Assailing the said reasoning given by the Sub Registrar for not registering the sale certificate, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner who is having the first charge as a secured creditor and the original documents i.e. title deeds were deposited by the original owners i.e. respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioner Bank, based on which since the loan has not been repaid, the property was brought for sale by way of auction, through the auction it was taken by the 5^th respondent and accordingly the sale certificate has been issued by the petitioner Bank to and in favour of the 5^th respondent and therefore, the subsequent attachment made by the 4^th respondent Bank would not anyway detain the 1^st respondent from registering the sale certificate issued by the petitioner Bank.

¶36

In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.06.2021 in W.P.No.13282 of 2021 in the matter of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank

¶37

4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶39

Limited, rep. By its Authorised Officer, Ellampillai, Salem District Vs. The Sub Registrar, Mallasamudram, Sub-Registrar Office, Trichengode Taluk, Namakkal District and others.

¶40

On the other hand, Mr.N.K.S.Rukmangathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that, insofar as the property in question is concerned, it has been attached by the orders of this Court and the 4^th respondent is also a secured creditor it is also equally entitled to recover the money from the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. Therefore, against the property in question since the loan was advanced to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, the right of the 4^th respondent cannot be defeated merely because that the title deeds have already been deposited with the petitioner Bank, therefore the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that,

¶41

the reason given by the 1^st respondent Sub Registrar in not registering the sale certificate is to be justified.

¶42

Heard Mr.Ramasamy Meyyappan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶43

5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶45

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned

¶46

counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶47

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner Bank as a secured creditor in whose favour the original documents pertaining to the property in question belongs to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents had been deposited is concerned, by virtue of that the petitioner Bank has become the first charge creditor that too a secured creditor and therefore any subsequent order passed by the Court with regard to the attachment pertaining to the 4^th respondent will be subject to the earlier charge created in the same property.

¶48

In support of this position, the Division Bench judgment referred to above can be pressed into service.

¶49

In fact the said order was passed in the writ petition instituted by the very same 4^th respondent Bank. Therefore the legal position is very clear knowing well to the 4^th respondent they cannot make any successful attempt to sustain the order or reason passed or reason given by the 1^st respondent

¶50

6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶52

Sub Registrar in not registering the sale certificate issued by the petitioner Bank to and in favour of the 5^th respondent. In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the 1^st respondent has no justification in refusing to register the sale certificate issued by the petitioner in favour of the 5^th respondent, therefore that reason cited in the impugned communication is liable to be interfered with, accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following orders:

¶53

That the impugned communication is set aside. As a sequel there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to register the sale certificate dated 05.08.2022 issued by the petitioner to and in favour of the 5^th respondent and the aforesaid needful shall be undertaken by the 1^st respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

With this direction, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No

¶55

costs.

¶56

04.01.2023

¶57

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶58

Sgl

¶59

7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

¶61

¶62

1.The Sub Registrar, Pondicherry Sub Registrar Office, Kamaraj Salai, Sakthi Nagar, Saram, Puducherry – 605 013.

¶63

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Cuddalore Branch, No.19, Siva Complex, Block No.8, Ward No.6, Imperial Road, Cuddalore – 607 002.

¶64

8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.23164 of 2022

04.01.2023

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Radhakrishnan Vs District Collector

Mrs.L.Nagammal Vs The District Collector

R.Santhi (Widow) Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of

Malathi Selvam, Vs Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

M.K.Ganesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Thanusu Vs The District collector