Karnataka High Court
M/S. Asset Reconstruction Company ... vs The Senior Sub Registrar on 20 December, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 28962 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 9193 OF 2017 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 9578 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
IN W.P.NO.28962 OF 2015
BETWEEN
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
(ARCIL)
THE RUBY,
10TH FLOOR, NO.29,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
DADAR WEST, MUMBAI CITY,
MAHARASHTRA-400 028
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. KHEZAR KHAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ARJUN RAO ALONG WITH
SRI: VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA AND
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA NO.488, P BLOCK, 14TH CROSS,
4TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY
T GOPALAKRISHNA
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
RAJAJINAGAR DISTRICT
LEELA ARCADE, NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT REGISTRAR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. M/S. SRIDEVI HOSPITAL
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1620 A, 16TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600040
REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
DR.K SENTILNATHAN
5. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE,
NO.762, ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. MANASA R. RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R5-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIRARI TO QUASH IMPOUNDING LETTER BEARING
NO.SRO/PEENYA/1203/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-J DATED
28.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, PEENYA
BANGALORE AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.9193 OF 2017
BETWEEN
M/S ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
(ARCIL)
THE RUBY,
10TH FLOOR, NO.29,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
DADAR WEST, MUMBAI CITY
MAHARASHTRA-400028
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR HARISH KUMAR
...PETITIONER
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
(BY SRI: ARJUN RAO ALONG WITH
SRI: VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR
NO.488, P BLOCK, 14TH CROSS,
4TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY
T GOPALAKRISHNA
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
RAJAJINAGAR DISTRICT
LEELA ARCADE, NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT REGISTRAR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. DR.K. SENTHILNATHAN
PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRIDEVI HOSPITAL
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1620 A, 16TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600040
REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
DR.K SENTILNATHAN
5. SMT. DEVI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O MR.N ARUN KARTHIK
RESIDING AT V.R.S.R.M. HOUSE,
ATHANGUID POST-630101
SHIVAGANGA DISTRICT.
6. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE,
NO.762, ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. MANASA R. RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R6;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR MANDAMUS TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEED OF
CANCELLATION DATED 03.10.2016 REGISTERED VIDE DOCUMENT
NO. 4707/2016-17 IN BOOK I IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-
REGISTRAR, PEENYA, BANGALORE & DEED OF DECLARATION DAED
03.10.2016 REGISTERED VIDE DOCUMENT NO.4706/2016-17 BOOK
I IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PEENYA PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-O & P RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
IN W.P.NO.9578 OF 2017
BETWEEN
M/S ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED
(ARCIL)
THE RUBY,
10TH FLOOR, NO.29,
SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
DADAR WEST, MUMBAI CITY
MAHARASHTRA-400028
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR HARISH KUMAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: ARJUN RAO ALONG WITH
SRI: VIGNESH SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR
NO.488, P BLOCK, 14TH CROSS,
4TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE, PEENYA
BANGALORE-560 058
REPRESENTED BY
T GOPALAKRISHNA
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
RAJAJINAGAR DISTRICT
LEELA ARCADE, NAGARBHAVI
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT REGISTRAR.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. DR.K. SENTHILNATHAN
PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRIDEVI HOSPITAL
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1620 A, 16TH MAIN ROAD,
ANNA NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600040
REP. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
DR.K SENTILNATHAN
5. SMT. DEVI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O MR.N ARUN KARTHIK
RESIDING AT V.R.S.R.M. HOUSE,
ATHANGUID POST-630101
SHIVAGANGA DISTRICT.
6. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE,
NO.762, ANNASALAI,
CHENNAI-600 002.
REP BY THE BANK MANAGER
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. MANASA R. RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
R4-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR MANDAMUS TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION BY THE
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, PEENYA, BANGALORE OF THE IMPUGNED
GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF
RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER 2014 VIDE DOCUMENT
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
NO. 5545/14-15 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS
THEREAFTER PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P AND FURTHER REMOVE
ALL THE ENTRIES IN RELATION TO THE REGISTRATION THEREOF
WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY FROM IT RECORDS
AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2024, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.28962/2015 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. To issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impounding
letter bearing No. SRO/Peenya/1203/2014-15 vide
Annexure-J dated 28.2.2015 issued by the Senior
Sub Registrar, Peenya Bangalore.
b. Grant such other relief as deemed fit to this Hon'ble
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Petitioner in W.P.No.9193/2017 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus to quash
the Impugned Deed of Cancellation dated
03.10.2016 registered vide Document
No.4707/2016-17 in Book I in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Peenya, Bangalore & Deed of Declaration
dated 03.10.2016 registered vide Document
No.4706/2016-17 Book I in office of the Sub-
Registrar, Peenya produced as Annexure-O and P,
respectively.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
ii. Grant such other relief as deemed fit to this Hon'ble
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The Petitioner in W.P.No.9578/2017 is before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus to quash
the registration by the Senior Sub-registrar, Peenya,
Bangalore of the Impugned Gift Deed executed by
Respondent No.4 in favour of Respondent No.5 dated
30th September 2014 vide Document No.554/14-15
and all subsequent transactions thereafter produced
as Annexure-P and further remove all the entries in
relation to the registration thereof with respect to
the Scheduled Property from its records.
ii. Grant such other relief as deemed fit to this Hon'ble
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The petitioners in each of the above matters are
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited
(ARCIL) registered as Securitisation and
Reconstruction Company under Section 3 of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). The
petitioner is also a financial institution under Section
2(h)(ia) of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and registered with
the Reserve Bank of India under Section 3 of
SARFAESI Act.
5. The facts in each of the above petitions are more or
less the same.
6. The original lender - Indian Overseas Bank
(hereinafter referred to as 'IOB') had for the
purchase of the Secured Property and for the
development and construction of residential
flats/apartments on the Secured Property vide its
sanction letters dated 12.04.2004, 17.11.2005,
20.06.2006, 24.12.2007 and 23.05.2008 granted
diverse financial assistance to borrower - M/s.Sridevi
Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'Sridevi').
7. As security for the said financial assistance, availed
from IOB, Sridevi had created an equitable mortgage
over Plot No.ML-8D, measuring 1.46 acres, situated
at Sy.No.2, Peenya Plantation, Yeshwantpura, Hobli,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Bangalore by depositing the title deeds of the said
property with IOB.
8. Sridevi had also executed various other documents
such as a Loan Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation,
Guarantee, etc. in favour of IOB. Sridevi having
defaulted in making payment of the dues on the said
loan accounts, the loan account was treated as non-
performing asset as per Reserve Bank of India
(hereinafter referred to as 'RBI') guidelines and it is
thereafter that IOB executed a Deed of Assignment
on 31.8.2013, whereunder IOB sold, assigned,
transferred and released all financial assets
pertaining to the account of IOB including all security
interest, guarantees, rights, title and interest therein
to ARCIL.
9. Pursuant to the assignment in terms of Section 5(4)
of the SARFAESI Act, ARCIL being entitled to pursue
all proceedings to recover the dues having taken
assignment of all the rights of the IOB, ARCIL
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
informed Sridevi that it had taken over the financial
assistance granted by IOB vide its letter dated
01.09.2010. Sridevi replied to the same on
07.09.2010, stating that it was interested in
settlement of the loans, and offered broad terms of
settlement. ARCIL, vide its letter dated 30.09.2010,
had informed Sridevi that it was ready to settle the
dues as per the terms of the resolution plan, and
broad terms of condition dated 27.09.2010 and
requested Sridevi to sign a duplicate copy of the
letter.
10. Sridevi and the guarantors signed the same as also
the term sheet and thereafter made certain
payments till September 2011. Thereafter, there
being defaults on part of Sridevi, ARCIL exercised its
rights under the SARFAESI Act and issued a notice in
terms of subsection (2) of Section 13 of the
SARFAESI Act and in terms of the provisions of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
(hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Rules') and
instructed Sridevi not to transfer any assets.
11. No reply having been issued to the said notice or the
notice thereafter under subsection (4) of Section 13,
ARCIL approached the 7th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act by filing Criminal Misc.No.1037/2013
which came to be allowed permitting Petitioner-
ARCIL to take physical possession of the property,
which was so taken over on 28.03.2013.
12. Despite having taken possession, ARCIL was unable
to go ahead with the sale of the property or the like
on account of the actions on part of Sridevi and the
guarantors inasmuch as there were litigations
initiated on behalf of or at the behest of Sridevi.
Sridevi, had also filed criminal complaints which were
quashed by this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
13. When auction notification was published on
15.03.2015, Sridevi filed a suit in OS No.2731/2015
contending that the resolution plan and broad terms
of conditions had not been properly stamped, as per
the Karnataka Stamp Act, allegedly on the basis of a
letter issued by the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, who is
the respondent No.1 in WP No.28962/2015. Sridevi,
sought for stay of the auction as also for impounding
of the aforesaid document on the basis of the letter
issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar. ARCIL contested
the said suit, having filed a caveat. The interim
order which was sought for was refused. It is on the
filing of the suit and on examination of the
documents that ARCIL came to know that the letter
issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar was on account of
a complaint filed by an organization named Anti-
Corruption Council of India.
14. ARCIL contending that the said letter issued by the
Senior Sub-Registrar is beyond his purview and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
contrary to the applicable law, has filed WP
No.28962/2015, seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
15. The letter issued by a Senior Sub-Registrar dated
28.02.2015, produced at Annexure-J to WP
No.28962/2015 is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
Government of Karnataka
Stamps and Registration Department
No/SRO/Peenya/1203/2014-15 Peenya Sub Registrar Office
No. 488, P Block, 14th
Cross, 4th Stage, 2 Phase,
Peenya,
Bangalore 560058.
Date: 28/02/2015
To
The District Registrar
Rajajinagara District
Leela Arcade, Nagarabhavi
Bangalore
Sir.
Sub:- Impounding and examination of
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
instruments U/s 33 of the K.S.Act
1957 reg:-
With reference to the above, an instrument of
Agreement of conveyance is presented before me by
the Anti-Corruption council of India which is described
as agreement of conveyance Sridevi Hospital
(Resolution plan and Broad terms and conditions)
Which is executed on 27.9.2010 by Sri Devi Hospitals,
No. 1620-A, 16th main road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-
600040 in favour of Assets reconstruction company
(Arcil) India Ltd, No. 29, The Ruby 10th floor, senapati
Bapat marg, Dadar west, Mumbai-400028.
Whereas, on my perusal the instrument in question
involves an actual contract of conveyance and liability
of stamp duty to be borne by Arcil Trusts (i.e, Arcil and
its Trust) there by violating the provison of sec 59, 59-
A and 59-B of the Karnataka stamp Act 1957 i.e, it
attracts, "penalty for executing etc, instrument not
duly stamped." And they have executed the
instruments with an intention to defraud the state Govt
revenue by also violating the essential basic provison's
of Karnataka stamp Law i.e, sec 34 instruments not
duly stamped inadmissible in evidence etc."
And whereas, the tenor and contents of the said
instruments clearly shows that there is an huge
investments, security and liability aspects and the
financial institution's and the Arcil Trusts have not once
bothered to obtain an adjudication or opinion of the
Deputy commissioner under the Karnataka stamp Act
1957 or not even also bothered to register the
document which is a subject matter of conveyance's
and transfer's and without any registration's the
immovable properties are encumbered by merely
executing such documents, and by making such
deviations the immovable properties are being
subjected to release and relinquishment's of their
respective share, right title and interest therein, This
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
instrument involves evasion of proper stamp duty
under the several articles of the schedule to the
Karnataka stamp Act 1957 and failure to adhere to the
provisions of sec 28, Facts affecting duty to be set
forth in instrument" by the concerned Bank's or
financial instruction's Arcil and its Trust and IOB
Chennai Br. The Govt of Karnataka department of
registration and Stamp's has lossed huge amount of
revenue due to non levy of proper stamp duty on this
Instrument.
Hence, in exercise of the power conferred to me under
section 33 of the Karnataka stamp Act 1957 I hereby
impound this document for further action U/s 37 with a
request to take suitable action for violating the
provision's of stamp law and also committing criminal
breach of trust on the part of Arcil and its Trust and
concerned IOB, Chennai. Br.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
T. Gopalakrishna
Senior Sub-Registror
Peenya Bangalore
Enclosed: Original deed of Conveyance impounded
herewith.
Copy to:
Anti Corruption Council to India, No.27/3,
Block 'B' P.H. 4, The Summit Aparment,
Sankey Road, Bengaluru-560052.
For Kind information and appropriate Action
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
16. The facts in WP 9193/2017 are more or less similar,
the very same Senior Sub-Registrar had issued a
certificate that the scheduled property was free of
encumbrances on 09.10.2014. ARCIL sought for
clarification by pointing out to the Senior Sub-
Registrar that the property had been mortgaged and
security had been created. It was then that it was
brought to the notice of ARCIL that the proprietor of
Sridevi, one Dr. K. Senthilnathan, who is respondent
No.4 in WP No.9193/2017, had executed a unilateral
Deed of Declaration dated 03.10.2016 registered as
Document No.4706/2016-17 and a unilateral Deed of
Cancellation (cancellation of Assignment Agreement
dated 31.8.2010 registered on 21.10.2010 between
I.O.B. and ARCIL) dated 3.10.2016 which is
registered as Document No.4707/2016-17.
17. Under both these documents which were registered
by the Senior Sub-Registrar, a unilateral declaration
was made by Dr. K. Senthilnathan that the Deed of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Assignment dated 21.10.2016 executed by IOB in
favour of ARCIL was null and void and by way of the
Deed of Cancellation, the Senior Sub-Registrar
registered the document unilaterally executed by
Dr.Senthilnathan cancelling the assignment
agreement and it is in that background that ARCIL
obtained certified copies of the document and is
before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
18. In WP No.9578/2017, the facts arise subsequent to
the execution of Deed of Declaration and Deed of
Cancellation inasmuch as Dr.Senthilnathan has
executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter
Smt.Devi, on 30.09.2014 registered as Document
No.5545/2014-15, with the Sub-Registrar of Peenya.
The said Smt.Devi in turn has gifted a portion of the
said property to her brother Dr.Ashwin, on
4.02.2015, registered as Document No.22572/2015-
16 and thereafter Srimati Devi has also entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding, with one
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Mr.O.S.Hussain, pertaining to the very same
property.
19. ARCIL, on coming to know of the same, submitted a
detailed representation to the Senior Sub-Registrar,
and his immediate superior, the District Registrar, on
30.07.2016, not to permit any transaction, over the
property subject matter of the mortgage. Despite
which Respondent No.1, Senior Sub-Registrar, has
gone ahead and registered the documents.
20. Dr.Senthilnathan, having filed Insolvency Petition
No.55/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras,
was declared as an insolvent by the said Court on
7.10.2013, and as such, it is contended that post
7.10.2013, Dr.Senthilnathan could not have
executed any gift deed as regards the subject
property. This being apart from the contention that
he had no right to do so and it is in that background
that ARCIL is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
21. Sri.Arjun Rao, learned counsel appearing for ARCIL,
would submit that
21.1. Though normally this Court would not entertain
a prayer in a writ petition for cancellation of the
registered documents, this Court would be
required to exercise such extraordinary
jurisdiction, taking into account the fraud that
has been perpetuated by Sridevi firstly,
Dr.Senthilnathan secondly, and thereafter by
his children, Dr. Devi and Dr. Ashwin, as also
by the aforesaid Sri.O.S.Hussain, and a so-
called organization known as Anti-Corruption
Council of India.
21.2. All the documents having been executed in a
proper and required manner between Sridevi
and IOB, IOB had assigned all its right under
the said documents to ARCIL, the resolution
plan and broad terms and conditions was
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
executed by Sridevi, Dr.K.Senthilnathan and his
wife Ms. Meena in favour of ARCIL. The said
resolution, plan and broad terms and conditions
was also acted upon and it is only on default
when ARCIL exercised its rights under the
SARFAESI Act that Sridevi, represented by its
promoter, Dr.Senthilnathan, have indulged in
various illegal activities.
21.3. By referring to the letter of the Senior Sub-
Registrar, Peenya, he submits that without any
document having been presented before the
Senior Sub-Registrar for registration or
otherwise, on the basis of a complaint by some
organization by name Anti-Corruption Council
of India, the Senior Sub-Registrar has come to
a conclusion that the same is a contract of
conveyance liable for stamp duty executed with
the intention to defraud the State Government.
21.4. Senior Sub-Registrar Mr. T. Gopalakrishna, is
stated to have impounded the document for
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
further action under Section 37. The said letter
is addressed to District Registrar, Rajajinagara
and copy is marked to Anti-Corruption Council
of India, No.27/3, Block-B, PH-4, Summit
Apartment, Sankey Road, Bangalore, 560052,
for information.
21.5. Thus he submits that the complaint having been
filed by Anti-Corruption Council of India,
allegedly on behalf of Dr.Senthilnathan,
unilateral action has been taken by the Senior
Sub-Registrar; the document is proposed to be
impounded without even a notice to the IOB or
ARCIL, even though at several places in the
said letter, ARCIL and IOB have been
mentioned.
21.6. By referring to the Deed of Declaration, he
submits that the Deed of Declaration which is
produced at Annexure-O to WP No.9193/2017
runs into nearly 58 pages. The deed of
declaration has been unilaterally executed by
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Dr.K.Senthilnathan, whose details are found at
page 1; from page 2 to page 41, there have
been extracts of various judgments produced
and from page 42, a claim has been made by
Dr.Senthilnathan that he is the owner of the
immovable properties and details of the
purchase have been given; at page 46, it is
claimed that he has cleared the loans of IOB
and no due certificate has been issued by IOB
and alleging that there is collusion between IOB
and ARCIL in executing various documents,
Dr.Senthilnathan has filed various complaints,
at page 55 he has declared that ARCIL has
played fraud, coercion and suppressed before
the courts and it is this document which has
been registered by the Sub-Registrar, Peenya,
Bangalore as document No.4706 on 3-10-2016
in Book-1 and stored in CD No.PNYD 647.
21.7. No such document could have been executed
let alone registered in Book-1. A unilateral
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
declaration, is not a document which can be
registered in Book-1. Furthermore, the Sub-
Registrar could not have registered a
declaration that the documents executed
between IOB and ARCIL are fraudulent or
otherwise.
21.8. By referring to the Deed of Cancellation
produced at Annexure-P to WP No.9193/2017,
which again runs to 58 pages, he submits that
page 1 gives the details of Dr.Sentilnathan,
page 2 to 41 are repetition of the extracts of
the judgments, ownership and claim of
Dr.Sentilnathan has been detailed out from
page 42 to 46 and thereafter, allegations have
been made against IOB and ARCIL and
consequently, alleging that there is fraud
played, he has declared that the assignment
dated 31-8-2010, executed and registered as
document No.3413/2010-11, in Book-1,
registered on 21-10-2010, in the office of the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Sub-Registrar, Annanagar, Chennai, is null and
void and any person or the Indian Overseas
Bank or its agency, ARCIL, shall have no right,
title or interest over the said property.
21.9. This again he submits, could not have been
done by Sub-Registrar, Peenya firstly
contending that Dr.Senthilnathan was not a
party to the Deed of Assignment between IOB
and ARCIL. Secondly, the Senior Sub-
Registrar, Peenya could not register a
document, cancelling a document, that to when
it is registered in sub registrar's office Chennai.
Thirdly he submits that there cannot be a
unilateral declaration which could be registered.
Fourthly that such a declaration could not
negate a mortgage registered in Book 1. Thus,
he submits that these illegal actions on part of
Dr.Senthilnathan have to be dealt with strictly
by this Court by granting the relief sought for.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
21.10. Insofar as W.P.No.9578/2017 is concerned, he
submitted that the very same Dr.Senthilnathan
representing Sridevi has gifted a portion of the
property mortgaged to his daughter, which
could not have been so registered by the Sub-
Registrar when there is a mortgage on the said
property. He submits that, all the above
indicates, the illegality, perpetuated by Sridevi
and Dr.Senthilnathan in collusion with the Sub-
Registrar, requiring this Court to take
cognizance of these facts, and take strict action
by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction and
powers vested with this Court, both under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
22. Sridevi has been represented by various counsel
from time to time. Firstly, Smt.Sabhitha M., counsel
appeared and submitted on 25.10.2024 that
22.1. The writ petitions were not maintainable since
they were related to impounding of an
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
instrument on account of insufficiency of stamp
in W.P.No.28962/2015, cancellation of a Deed
of Declaration in W.P.No.9193/2017 and
quashing of a Deed of Declaration in
W.P.No.9193/2017 and as such the ARCIL
would have to approach jurisdictional Civil
Court.
22.2. The said submission was reiterated and it is
contended that this Court would not have
jurisdiction to entertain the present matters.
22.3. Subsequently, on 13.11.2024 one another
counsel appeared and reiterated the very same
submission made by Smt.Sabhitha M., and
further contention was made that
Dr.Senthilnathan was well within his rights to
execute a declaration as regards the property
relating to Sridevi of which he was the
promoter.
22.4. The cancellation of documents executed in
relation to the property of Sridevi is also
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
proper, inasmuch as neither IOB nor ARCIL had
any right to execute such deed of assignment.
Dr.Senthilnathan being adversely affected by
the said Deed of Assignment has executed the
Deed of Declaration and Cancellation
Agreement, and no fault can be found with
them.
22.5. It is further contended that all the aspects are
disputed facts, which can only be agitated
before a Court of competent jurisdiction, and
this Court ought not to excise its jurisdiction in
the matter, and as such dismissal of the above
writ petitions was sought for.
22.6. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on
27.11.2024, another counsel, namely Shri
Sri.Mahadevasetty sought to address his
arguments by seeking for an adjournment when
it was pointed out to him that arguments had
been already addressed and the matter had
been adjourned to 27.11.2024 only for the
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
purpose of enabling the AGA to submit if the
Senior sub-registrar was in service as also to
provide the names of the Senior Sub-Registrar
and Sub-Registrar of Peenya. However, this
counsel was also heard, who repeated the very
same submissions, and the matter was
reserved for judgment.
23. Heard Sri.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for ARCIL,
Sri.Spoorthy Hegde, learned AGA for respondents
No.1 to 3 and Smt.Sabhitha M., and
Sri.Mahadevasetty, learned counsel for Sridevi in all
the above matters and perused papers.
24. Subsequent thereto, an application in I.A.No.3/2024
has been filed on 16.12.2024 by the counsel for
Sridevi Hospital after the matter was reserved for
judgment.
25. Sridevi has prayed for this Court to consider the legal
factual and legal aspects of the application and reject
the Writ Petition. In the affidavit which has been
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
filed by Dr.Senthilnathan, Proprietor of Sridevi
Hospital, it is stated that there is a suit in
O.S.No.8433/2023 which is pending between ARCIL
and Dr.Senthilnathan where declaratory relief has
been sought for, which has been contested by ARCIL.
Therefore, the Writ Petition has to be rejected
directing ARCIL to contest the suit. It is further
stated that another suit in O.S.No.8167/2024 has
been filed for declaration against ARCIL. The Civil
Court being ceased of the matter, the same cannot
be agitated in writ jurisdiction and the above petition
is barred by principles of res judicata.
26. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether a unilateral declaration could have
been executed by a person and registered in
Book-1 by a Sub-Registrar?
2. Whether a unilateral cancellation agreement
could be executed and registered by a party,
not party to the registered document and be
registered by a Sub-Registrar?
3. Whether a Sub-Registrar could impound any
document without giving notice to a party to
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
the said document on the basis of a
complaint filed by a third party?
4. What order?
27. Before answering the points that have arisen, let me
deal with I.A.No.3/2024, which has been filed by the
counsel for respondent No.4. Firstly, it is contended
that there is a suit in O.S.No.8433/2023, which has
been filed by Dr.Senthilnathan against ARCIL and
others. Having perused the records, it is seen that
the reliefs which have been sought for in the said suit
is as under:-
a) To Declare the document viz "Resolution plan and
Broad Terms and conditions" entered between the
plaintiff and 1st defendant is nul and void and not
binding to the plaintiff in respect of the schedule
property as impounded and not in accordance and
inadmissible under law and confirm the impounding
order dated 28.2.2015 passed by the Senior Sub-
Registrar, Peenya, Bangalore as per section 33 of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
b) To declare the defendant No.1 has no locus standi to
claim any right, title or interest over the schedule
property of the plaintiff in any manner and direct the
1st defendants not to act upon the documents by
name Resolution Plan and Board Terms conditions as
an agreement of Conveyance which is impounded by
the Government of Karnataka as per the order dated
28-02-2015 issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar,
Peenya, Bengaluru.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
c) To direct the court office to calculate the duty penaly
from the year 2015 to till date pertaining to
impounded document and recover the loss caused to
the State Excheque;
d) To declare any transactions taken place between the
defendants in respect of the Schedule property are
all voidable transactions and not in accordance with
law;
e) Grant such other relief including cost of this suit in
the interest of justice.
28. A perusal of the aforesaid prayers would indicate that
reference has been made to the impounding of the
document titled resolution plan and broad terms and
conditions, which has been dealt with by this Court.
The said suit in O.S.No.8433/2023 has been filed
much subsequent to the above Writ Petitions which
have been filed before this Court. In
W.P.No.28962/2015, the impounding of the
document by Senior Sub-Registrar, Peenya is under
challenge. That being so, I am of the considered
opinion that the orders passed in the present writ
petition would have an impact on the civil suit and
not otherwise since it is the power of the Senior Sub-
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Registrar to impound the document in the manner
done, which has to be considered by this Court.
29. Insofar as suit in O.S.No.8167/2024 is concerned, a
perusal of the plaint would indicate that the relief
sought for are as under:-
a) To declare that the Deed of Declaration dated
03.10.2016 registered on 04.10.2026 registered as
Document No. PNY-1-04706/2016-17, Book 1,
Stored in PNYD647, in the office of the Sr. Sub-
Registrar, Peenya, executed by the plaintiff is binding
on the defendant and restrain the defendant from
interfering with the plaintiff's affairs or his properties
in future;
b) To declare that Deed of Cancellation dated 3.10.2016
registred on 4-10-2026 registered as Document No.
PNY-1-04707/2016-17, Book-1. Registrar Peenya,
executed by the plaintiff is binding on the defendant
and restrain the defendant from interfering with the
plaintiff's affairs or his properties in future;
c) Consequently to grant permanent injunction
restraining the defendant, their henchmen,
successors, officers, representatives attorneys,
agents or any person claiming under them, from
interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiff suit schedule properties;
d) To grant the costs of suit; and
e) To grant such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances
of the case together with cost, in the interest of
justice and equity.
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
30. A perusal of the above prayers would indicate that
the Deed of Declaration dated 03.10.2016 and Deed
of Cancellation dated 03.10.2016 which are subject
matter of W.P.No.9193/2017 are sought to be
enforced. The validity of the said document is not
under challenge in that suit but the registration of
the said documents is under challenge in the Writ
Petitions. As such, I am of the considered opinion
that pendency of the suit in O.S.No.8433/2023 would
also not come in the way of this Court deciding the
lis between the parties. Hence, I.A.3/2024 stands
rejected.
31. I answer the above points as under:-
32. Answer to Point No.1: Whether a unilateral
declaration could have been executed by a
person and registered in Book-1 by a Sub-
Registrar?
AND
33. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a unilateral
cancellation agreement could be executed and
registered by a party, not party to the
registered document and be registered by a
Sub-Registrar?
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
33.1. From the documents which have been produced
and as referred to by Mr.Arjun Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the
Deed of Declaration has about 58 pages
executed only by Dr.K.Senthilnathan, whose
details are found at Page No.1; from Page No.2
to Page No.41, there are extracts of various
judgments and in Page 42, a claim has been
made by Dr.Senthilnathan that he is the owner
of the immovable property and the details of
his purchase have been given; at Page No.46, it
is claimed that he has cleared the loans of IOB
and No Due Certificate has been issued by IOB
and alleging that there is collusion between IOB
and ARCIL in executing various documents.
Dr.Senthilnathan is alleged to have filed various
complaints and at Page No.55, he has on his
own unilaterally declared that ARCIL has played
fraud, practiced coercion and suppressed before
the Courts various aspects and it is this
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
document which has been registered as
document No.4706 on 03.10.2016 in Book-1
and stored in CD No.PNYD 647.
33.2. As regards Deed of Cancellation, it is seen in
that in a similar manner the said document
runs into 58 pages; page 1 gives the details of
Dr.Sentilnathan, Page No.2 to Page No.41 are
repetition of the extracts of the judgments,
ownership and claim of Dr.Sentilnathan has
been detailed out from Page No.42 to Page
No.46 and thereafter, allegations have been
made against IOB and ARCIL and consequently,
alleging that there is fraud played and he has
declared that the assignment dated
31.08.2010, executed and registered as
document No.3413/2010-11, in Book-1,
registered on 21.10.2010, in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Annanagar, Chennai is null and
void.
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
33.3. I have seen these documents, it is shocking
that such documents have even been allowed
to be registered by the Senior Sub-Registrar,
Peenya.
33.4. Before registering any document, the said
document would have to be perused, examined
and ascertained if the requirement of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 and the requirement of
the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965 are
complied with or not. It is not that any
document placed before the Sub-registrar will
be registered blindly. It is only if compliance is
made of the requirement of the Act and Rules
that the document will proceed for registration.
A Sub-Registrar could not have allowed
registration of a document which has nearly 40
pages of extracts of judgments and has been
unilaterally made by one person. Any
document to be registered in Book 1 is required
to be related to the title of the property, an
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
unilateral declaration made by Dr.Senthilnathan
could not have been registered in Book-1. A
unilateral declaration has been made by him
that he has cleared the loans of IOB and No
Due Certificate has been issued by IOB, there is
no law which permits such a declaration in Book
1. A declaration has been made that there is
collusion between IOB and ARCIL in executing
various documents which is a self-serving
statement which again could not be registered
in Book 1. Again a unilateral declaration has
been made that ARCIL has played fraud,
practised coercion and suppressed before the
Courts various aspects if at all there is any
grievance it was for Sridevi or Dr Senthilnathan
to have agitated the same before a court of
competent jurisdiction. Any document which is
registered by a sub-registrar in Book 1 would
also be reflected in the encumbrance certificate
and there credibility attached to such a
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
registered document. The manner in which the
registration of such a declaratory affidavit in
Book 1 has been made clearly and categorically
indicates collusion between Dr. Senthilnathan
and the sub-registrar, the actions on part of the
sub-registrar are beyond his official powers and
the said document has been registered contrary
to the applicable law.
33.5. The unilateral cancellation of the Assignment
Agreement between IOB and ARCIL could not
also have been registered in Book-1 finding an
entry in the encumbrance certificate and based
on the same, the Sub-Registrar could not have
held that the title of Dr.Senthilnathan and/or
Sridevi was clear and marketable, for the same
reasons aforesaid. A document can be cancelled
by parties to the document and not by
unilaterally registering and cancellation deed. If
a document is registered it can be cancelled by
the parties to the said document registering a
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
cancellation deed to by obtaining a decree from
a competent court cancelling the agreement. In
this case an unregistered Agreement between
IOB and Arcil is cancelled by Dr.
Senthilanathan, when he is not even a party to
the said agreement, the least that a sub-
registrar is required to do is to verify the
parties to the document, which has also not
been done.
33.6. The Sub-Registrar, it is clear has acted beyond
his powers and, in fact, has abdicated all his
duties while registering both the above
documents, it is therefore required that an
enquiry is held in this regard.
33.7. A document can be cancelled either by an order
of the Court or by all the parties coming
together and executing a document, so long as
no further document has been executed in
furtherance thereof.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
33.8. Thus, I answer Point No.1 by holding that a
unilateral declaration could not have been
executed by a person and registered in Book-1
by a Sub-Registrar.
33.9. I answer Point No.2 by holding that a unilateral
cancellation agreement could not be executed
and registered by a party who is not a party to
a document, let alone be registered by a Sub-
Registrar.
34. Answer to Point No.3: Whether a Sub-Registrar
could impound any document without giving
notice to a party to the said document on the
basis of a complaint filed by a third party?
34.1. The Sub-Registrar, as could be seen, has acted
on a complaint filed by a third party called as
Anti-Corruption Council of India in passing an
order dated 28.02.2015, thereby impounding
the document being titled as Resolution Plan
and Broad Terms and Conditions executed by
ARCIL, Sridevi and the guarantors.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
34.2. Mr.T.Gopalakrishna, the Senior Sub-Registrar in
his order dated 28.02.2015 has referred to the
tenor and contents of the instruments and has
come to a conclusion that the same involves
evasion of proper stamp duty under several
articles of the schedule to the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957. Before doing so, the said Senior
Sub-Registrar has not issued any notice to
ARCIL or the debtors, namely Sridevi and the
guarantors.
34.3. A copy of the said order is also marked only to
the Anti-Corruption Council of India and not to
ARCIL, Sridevi and/or the guarantors even
though ARCIL and IOB's names have been
mentioned in the said letter. An order of
impounding could not have been passed
without in this case having issued a notice to
the parties to the document. It is not clear as
to who this Anti-Corruption Council of India is,
who has submitted such a complaint to the
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Senior Sub-Registrar, resulting in the Senior
Sub-Registrar passing such an illegal order on
28.02.2015. It would therefore be required
that the necessary enquiry be made in this
regard also.
34.4. In that view of the matter, I answer Point No.3
by holding, that the Sub-Registrar could not
have impounded any document without giving
notice, to a party to the said document on the
basis of a complaint said to have been
submitted by a third party to the document.
35. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
35.1. Though this Court normally would not entertain
or pass orders cancelling any document in a
writ petition, the manner in which the Sub-
Registrar, Sridevi, Dr.Senthilnathan, Smt.Devi
have acted in registering the documents which
could never have been registered requires this
Court to exercise its extraordinary powers and
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
extraordinary jurisdiction to come to the rescue
of the petitioner who has been deprived of
exercising its rights on account of illegal actions
of Sridevi, Dr.Senthilnathan, Smt.Devi and Anti
Corruption Council of India and more
particularly the sub-registrar.
35.2. The manner in which the documents have been
executed and registered, shocks the conscience
of this court and this court cannot close its eyes
to the above illegalities and be rendered a mute
spectator to the illegalities committed by the
above persons, much less on the technical plea
that ARCIL needs to approach the Civil Court.
The plea of an alternate efficacious remedy is a
specious plea raised in the present matter by
Sridevi and Dr Senthilnathan, to continue to
perpetuate illegalities, such actions on their
part cannot be allowed by this court, in the face
of the above facts, there is a duty imposed on
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
this court to strike down such blatant
illegalities.
35.3. As indicated in my answers to Points No.1, 2
and 3, the said documents could never have
been registered nor an impounding order could
be passed. It is for this reason that enquiry is
also being ordered in relation thereto.
35.4. Such being the case, this Court cannot close its
eyes to the illegalities committed by Sridevi,
Dr.Senthilnathan, Smt.Devi and Anti-Corruption
Council of India. If the said documents were
permitted to continue on record, gross injustice
would be caused to the petitioner and the
illegalities committed would result in a premium
to the violators since they would have
succeeded in depriving the ARCIL of the
Security that ARCIL enjoys. Hence, taking into
consideration the entire gamut facts of law
applicable and the manner in which Sridevi,
Dr.Senthilnathan, Smt.Devi, Anti-Corruption
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
Council of India have conducted themselves in
collusion with Sub-Registrar, Peenya.
35.5. The manner in which Sridevi Hospital and
Dr.Senthilnathan have acted indicates a clear
case of gross abuse of process of Court. The
said Sridevi Hospital and Dr.Senthilnathan have
apparently come to a conclusion that they can
execute any documents, file any pleadings, file
any suit and get away with it. This Court as
aforesaid cannot be mute spectator to such
gross abuse resorted to by Sridevi and
Dr.Senthilnathan. If this Court in the present
case does not intercede then any litigant will
indulge in such gross abuse of process of Court
as also indulge in such execution of illegal
documents and it is therefore required that this
Court to preserve the majesty of justice as also
prevent the abuse of process of Court
intercedes in the present matter. When Writ
Petitions have been filed challenging the said
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360
WP No. 28962 of 2015
C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017
WP No. 9578 of 2017
documents, Sridevi Hospital and
Dr.Senthilnathan have filed suits in
O.S.No.8433/2023 and O.S.No.8167/2024 to
enforce a Deed of Declaration, Deed of
Cancellation and impounding of the documents
and relying on the same, it is sought to be
contended that ARCIL has to be relegated to
the said suit and the Writ Petitions have to be
dismissed. This again is a over reach of the
judicial proceedings resorted to by Sridevi
Hospital and Dr.Senthilnathan.
35.6. In view of my above findings, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) W.P.No.28962/2015 is allowed, a certiorari is issued, Impugned Letter bearing No.SRO/Peenya/1203/ 2014-15 vide Annexure-J dated 28.2.2015 issued by the Senior Sub Registrar, Peenya Bangalore is quashed.
ii) W.P.No.9193/2017 is allowed, a certiorari is issued, Impugned Deed of Cancellation
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360 WP No. 28962 of 2015 C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017 WP No. 9578 of 2017 dated 03.10.2016 registered vide Document No.4707/2016-17 in Book-I in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, Bangalore and the Deed of Declaration dated 03.10.2016 registered vide Document No.4706/2016-17 Book-I in office of the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, produced as Annexures-O and P, respectively, are quashed. The Sub- Registrar, Peenya, is directed to make necessary entries as regards the cancellation of the aforesaid two documents in the register maintained by him.
iii) W.P.No.9578/2017 is allowed, a certiorari is issued, the registration by the Senior Sub-registrar, Peenya, Bangalore of the impugned Gift Deed executed by Respondent No.4 in favour of Respondent No.5 dated 30th September 2014 vide Document No.554/14-15 and all subsequent transactions thereafter vide Annexure-P is quashed. The Sub- Registrar, Peenya, is directed to make necessary entries as regards the cancellation in the register maintained by him.
iv) The Commissioner of Stamps and Inspector General of Registration is directed to cause an inquiry into the manner in which the Sub-Registrar, Peenya has impounded the document, registered the Deed of Cancellation dated 03.10.2016 vide Document No.4707/2016-17 in Book-I in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, Bangalore and the Deed of Declaration dated 03.10.2016
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC:53360 WP No. 28962 of 2015 C/W WP No. 9193 of 2017 WP No. 9578 of 2017 registered vide Document No.4706/2016- 17 Book-I in office of the Sub-Registrar, Peenya, and has also acted on the complaint filed by Anti-Corruption Council of India and take necessary action against the Sub-Registrar and Anti-Corruption Council of India after due enquiry, which shall be preceded by issuing due notice and following all the applicable procedures relating thereto. He is also at liberty to file criminal complaints against Sridevi, Dr.Senthilnathan, Smt.Devi, Anti- Corruption Council of India, sub- registrar as also any other person or entity if found to be involved in any illegal acts.
v) A report relating to the above to be placed on the record of this Court within three months from today.
vi) Though the above petition is disposed of, relist on 08.04.2025 for reporting compliance.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42