Allowed

M/s. M.G. Enterprises, Partnership Firm v. The Joint Sub - Registrar

Madras HC27 Nov 2023WP(MD)/19195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 against the Joint Sub Registrar, the Madurai Bench held that the registering authority cannot withhold a sale certificate obtained via SARFAESI auction due to pending enquiries about the original borrower's missing documents, directing the release of the certificate to the successful bidder.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to complete balance formalities and issue the registered sale certificate to the petitioner without further delay.

M/s. M.G. Enterprises, Partnership Firm Vs The Joint Sub… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶7

M/s.M.G.Enterprises, Partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner, P.Mani Gounder, S/o.Pongiyanna Gounder No.39, Chinna Muthu 3^rd Street, Ediyankattuvalasu, Erode-638 011. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Joint Sub Registrar, Madurai North, Madurai. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to release the Sale Certificate registered in Doc.No. P70/2023 dated 02.06.2023 executed in favour of the petitioner in pursuant to the receipt No. 4382/2023 for releasing the above document.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameelarasu For Respondent : Mr.K.Balasubramani Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard both sides.

1/5

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶16

The Punjab National Bank had advanced loan in favour of one R.Krishnasamy S/o.Ramamoorthy. The petition mentioned property was offered as collateral security. The borrower committed default. The proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor. The petition mentioned property was brought to sale on 08.12.2022. The petitioner participated and their bid was successful. A sum of Rs.8,01,00,000/- was remitted by the petitioner and the sale certificate was issued by the secured creditor in favour of the petitioner on 02.06.2023. The sale certificate was presented for registration before the respondent on 02.06.2023. Even though the basic registration formalities were complied with by the respondent, the registered sale certificate was not released by the respondent. That led to filing of this writ petition.

¶17

The respondents have filed counter affidavit and also typed set of papers. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that while depositing the original title deed, the borrower had submitted a missing certificate said to have been issued by the Inspector of Police, Thiruparankundram Police Station, Madurai City. The registering authority received information that this missing certificate was ostensibly not issued by the concerned authority. Since an enquiry is pending in this regard, the respondent is withholding the document in question.

¶18

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

¶19

2/5

¶20

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

¶22

The learned Special Government Pleader reiterated the stand set out in the counter affidavit.

¶23

I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The only issue that calls for consideration is whether the respondent is justified in withholding the registered sale certificate. The reason set out in the counter affidavit is patently un-sustainable. If there is any illegality vitiating the sale process, then and then alone, the respondent would be justified in not registering the sale certificate. In this case, it is beyond dispute that Krishnasamy had mortgaged the petition mentioned property by deposit of title deed. The borrower had obviously lost the parent deed. That was the issue between the borrower and the lending institution. In order to reassure title, the borrower had produced the missing certificate for satisfaction of the secured creditor. The secured creditor had chosen to act on the same and issued loan to Krishnasamy. The loan account became an NPA. Thereupon,

¶24

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

¶25

3/5

¶26

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶27

SARFAESI proceedings were initiated and the property itself was sold in public auction. The petitioner has purchased the same. All that the petitioner wants is registration of the sale certificate and its release. The registering authority need not concern himself with the genuineness of the missing certificate produced by the borrower at the time of obtaining loan. This Court also should be mindful of the fact that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act will have an overriding effect. The respondent is directed to complete the balance formalities, if any and issue the registered sale certificate to the petitioner without any further delay.

¶28

The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶29

27.11.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi NOTE:Issue Order Copy on 30.11.2023.

¶30

¶31

The Joint Sub Registrar, Madurai North, Madurai.

¶32

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

¶33

4/5

¶34

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶35

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶36

rmi

¶37

W.P(MD)No.19195 of 2023

¶38

27.11.2023

¶39

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

¶40

5/5

M/s. M.G. Enterprises, Partnership Firm v. The Joint Sub - Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. M.G. Enterprises, Partnership Firm v. The Joint Sub - Registrar

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

Nandha Gopal .S Vs The District Collector

James.a.P Vs The District Registrar

Marisamy S Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Saminathan.U Vs the District Collector

Umaiyar .R Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Senthil Kumar.T Vs The District Registrar (Administration)