Karnataka High Court
M/S Adidev Polymers Private Ltd vs State Bank Of Patiala on 27 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 38736 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/S ADIDEV POLYMERS PRIVATE LTD
A REGISTERED PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED ,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
" ARCHANA COMPLEX", 37/12/1,
4TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD,
BANGALORE-27
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. SURESH KUMAR RAMSISARIA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PARAS JAIN., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE BANK OF PATIALA
Digitally signed MID CORPORATION BRANCH,
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA BADAMI HOUSE, N.S. SQUARE,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-02
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE SARASWAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT
# 47, " SOGO PROPERTIES",
FIRST FLOOR,
100 FEET ROAD,KORAMANGALA
BLOCK-IV,BANGALORE-34
3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,
QUEENS ROAD,
BANGALORE-01
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR -VIJAYANAGAR
SERVICE ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-40
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R4;
SRI. H.R. KATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1,
STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ITS OFFICIALS TO FACILITATE
REGISTRATION OF SALE CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER & FOR THAT PURPOSE TO DO ALL SUCH ACTS, SO THAT
SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY IT GETS REGISTERED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. The Respondent-1 State Bank of Patiala, and its
official to facilitate registration of Sale Certificate in
favour of the Petitioner and for that purpose to do all
such acts, so that sale certificate issued by it gets
registered.
b. The Respondent No.2 Bank and the Respondent No.3
may be directed to raise the attachment order which
has been passed in respect of the property
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
purchased by the petitioner-1 viz, property bearing
Municipal Corporation No.97, (PID No.38-12-97)
situated at 2nd main road, Coconut Garden, BBMP
Ward No.38, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, measuring East
to West 55 feet and North to South 75 feet on
Eastern side and 69 feet on Western side comprising
an area of 3960 square feet;
c. The Respondent-2 Bank and the Respondent-3 may
be directed that amount lying with the Respondent-1
bank may be attached by them to recover their dues
and for recovering their dues they cannot attach the
property which has been sold in public auction to the
Petitioner herein, by the respondent-1 Bank.
d. To quash the attachment orders passed by the
Respondent-2 and the respondent-3 in respect of
property purchased by the petitioner-1, viz.,
property bearing Municipal Corporation No. 97, (PID
No.38-12-97) situated at 2nd Main Road, Coconut
Garden, BBMP Ward No.38, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore.
e. To direct the Respondent No.1 State Bank of Patiala
to convey good title to the Petitioner free from all
encumbrances, as stated in the Rule 9 and Sale
Certificate.
f. And prays for such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of
the case, including costs, in the ends of justice and
equity.
2. Respondent No.1-State Bank of Patiala had issued a
public notice for auction sale of the residential
property bearing Municipal Corporation No.97 (PID
No.38-12-97) situated at 2nd Main Road, Coconut
Garden, BBMP Ward No.38, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore
under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as "Sarfaesi Act").
3. The said auction was conducted on account of the
dues of one Sri.Bhadraradhya of Rs.88,43,470/- to
respondent No.1. The petitioner participated in the
said auction by depositing an amount of
Rs.16,50,000/- as EMD on 14.05.2012. Petitioner's
Bid being the highest, the auction was confirmed in
favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,65,01,000/.
The balance 25% of the bid amount was directed to
and was paid by the Petitioner on 16.05.2012.
4. The Petitioner thereafter applied for an Encumbrance
Certificate with the Sub-register which was so
furnished, when the Petitioner came to know of
various transactions and that the said Sri.
Bhadraradhya was not the owner of the property.
5. The Union Bank of India (not a party to these
proceedings) had raised an objection that it has a
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
charge over the property, in that background, the
Petitioner filed WP No.22272 of 2012, which came to
be disposed by this Court on 10.01.2013 where in
this Court held that there was no hurdle for
Respondent No.1 in proceeding ahead and
completing all the formalities for sale and issuing a
sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner. The State
Bank of Patiala having contended that it has no
objection for completing the transaction so long as
the Petitioner deposits the remaining 75%
consideration. There being a claim which had been
raised by the Union Bank of India as regard the very
same property, liberty was reserved to the said
Union Bank of India to raise their disputes in the
pending proceedings before the DRT and permitted
the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 to be impleaded
in the pending proceedings.
6. The Petitioner contends that in pursuance of the said
direction, the Petitioner remitted the balance 75%
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
consideration, and accordingly, a sale certificate
came to be issued on 22.02.2013 in favour of the
Petitioner, which came to be revalidated on
13.03.2013. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted the
sale certificate to the jurisdictional Sub-registrar for
registration. The Sub-registrar refused to register the
same on the ground that the said property is subject
to attachment by Respondents No.2 and 3-herein,
i.e., the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and the
Tax Recovery Officer of the Income Tax Department,
and on request, a copy of the attachment order came
to be furnished to the Petitioner.
7. The first attachment order was one which was passed
in an Arbitration proceeding between Respondent
No.2-Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and Sun
Agro Tech Inc. and Sri.G.Bhadraradhya and the
second attachment order was one issued by
Respondent No.3- Income Tax Authority in terms of
second Schedule of the Income Tax Act on account of
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
income tax dues. It is in that background that the
Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
8. The submission of Sri.Paras Jain., learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, is that;
8.1. The auction having been conducted by the
State Bank of Patiala, a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, having directed the issuance of the
sale certificate after receiving the balance
consideration. In furtherance of the sale
certificate being issued, neither the Saraswat
Co-operative Bank Limited nor the Income Tax
Authorities can claim any right in the property.
8.2. The sale occurred on 15.05.2012, and the
attachment order was passed on 22.03.2012 in
private arbitration proceedings, which were not
to the Petitioner's knowledge. The attachment
order passed by the Income Tax Authority was
also not communicated to the Petitioner.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Hence, the question of Respondents No.2 and 3
claiming any amounts now could not at all
arise.
8.3. He submits that Sri.G.Bhadraradya and
Sri.Mohan Kumar had borrowed loans from
various banks. Sri.Mohan Kumar having sold
the property to Sri.G.Bhadraradhya on
12.01.2007 ceased to have any right in the
property. The sale deed having been executed
by him subsequently in favor of Smt.Shah
Jayalakshmi Jitesh, Smt.Shashikala M.Budhihal
and Smt.Archana Anand Kumar and
Smt.Anjana Ashok Kumar who had borrowed
money from Union Bank of India Which was
subject matter of the writ petition in WP
No.22272 of 2012.
8.4. The Petitioner having made payment of a sum
of Rs.1.65 crores from and out of the balance
amount which is available with the Bank of
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Patiala the dues being only Rs.88,43,470/-,
those balance amounts can be used for
payment to any other claim. He, therefore,
submitted that a sale having occurred in terms
of the Sarfaesi Act, the interest of the Petitioner
needs to be protected by directing the Sub-
registrar to register the sale certificate.
8.5. His submission is also that the sub-registrar has
no right to refuse to register the sale certificate
validly issued by the Bank, the non-registration
is causing untold harm and injury to the
Petitioner.
9. Sri.H.R.Katti., learned counsel appearing for State
Bank of Patiala submits that insofar as the said Bank
is concerned, they have issued the sale certificate, if
required the sale certificate would be revalidated, it
was for the sub-registrar to registrar the sale
certificate the Bank has nothing to do with it.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
10. There is no appearance on behalf of Respondent
No.2, though a counsel has entered representation
on behalf of Respondent No.2 and this Court vide
order dated 03.03.2025 had categorically indicated
that if none were to appear for Respondent No.2, the
matter would be taken up for consideration on the
basis of submission made by the Petitioner and
Respondent No.3.
11. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 would submit
that;
11.1.A certificate under Section 222 of the Income
Tax Act 1961 was drawn in the case of
Smt.Archana Anand Kumar for recovery on
02.03.2010. Accordingly, a notice of demand in
ITCP-1 under Rule 2 of Schedule-2 of the
Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as "IT Act") was issued on
06.04.2010, which was served on the said
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Smt.Archana Anand Kumar by affixture on
29.04.2010.
11.2.The said attachment order, having been passed
on 06.04.2010, was much prior to the public
auction. Therefore, in terms of Rule 16 of the
second Schedule of the IT Act, any transaction
conducted after the attachment without the
permission of Tax Recovery Officer shall be void
as against the Tax Recovery Officer.
11.3.He submits that even as per the Petitioner,
Sri.Mohan Kumar and Sri.G.Bhadraradhya had
acted collusively and mortgaged the property to
State Bank of Patiala. Sri.Mohan Kumar was
assisted by Sri.G.Bhadraradhya, and on that
background, it is contended that both of them
had colluded to defraud the government.
11.4.Insofar as the orders passed in WP No.22272 of
2012 are concerned, the Income Tax
Department was not a party to the said
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
proceedings. Recovery proceedings have been
initiated under Schedule 2 of the IT Act and an
attachment order issued on 06.04.2010 due
diligence ought to have been carried out by
both the State Bank of Patiala and the
Petitioner before the sale or purchase of the
property. The property being under prior
attachment, the same could not have been sold
by the Bank without the dues of the Income
Tax Authority being paid.
11.5.The sale being void could not be registered and
as such the Sub-registrar has rightly refused to
register the sale certificate and on that ground,
he submits that the petition is required to be
dismissed.
12. Heard Sri.Paras Jain., learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Sri.H.R.Katti., learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1,
Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat., learned counsel
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri.Mahantesh
Shettar., learned AGA appearing for respondent
No.4. Perused papers.
13. The points that would arise for determination are;
1. Whether there is a bar for a mortgagee
Bank to exercise powers under Sarfaesi
Act for sale of the property on account of
an attachment order passed by a Tax
Recovery Officer?
2. Whether the sale by way of auction
conducted by the State Bank of Patiala
wherein the Petitioner was declared
successful bidder is void insofar as the Tax
Recovery Officer is concerned?
3. Whether the sub-registrar could have
refused to register the sales certificate on
account of an attachment order issued by
a Tax Recovery Officer and an attachment
order passed in an Arbitration proceeding,
to put it in other words, whether an order
of attachment would entitle the Sub-
registrar to refuse registration of a
transfer of property?
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. Whether in the facts of this case, the
reliefs sought for by the Petitioner are
required to be granted?
5. What order?
14. I answer the above points as under;
15. Answer to point No.1: Whether there is a bar
for a mortgagee bank to exercise powers under
Sarfaesi Act for sale of the property on account
of an attachment order passed by a Tax
Recovery Officer?
15.1. It is not in dispute that the State Bank of
Patiala had notified the subject property for
auction by exercising powers under Sub-section
(4) of Section 13 of the Sarfaesi Act and that
the said auction was conducted on account of
the dues of Sri.G.Bhadraradhya. It is further not
in dispute that Sri.Mohan Kumar had sold the
property to Sri.G.Bhadraradhya, who had
borrowed the monies from the State Bank of
Patiala and thereafter sale deeds were executed
by Sri.G.Bhadraradhya and Sri.Mohan Kumar in
favour of Smt.Shah Jayalakshmi Jitesh in the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
year 2009 on 08.05.2009, in favour of
Smt.Shashikala M.Budhihal on 15.07.2009, in
favour of Smt.Archana Anand Kumar on
15.07.2009, in favour of Smt.Anjana Ashok
Kumar on 08.05.2009.
15.2. A gift deed came to be executed by Sri.Mohan
Kumar in favour of Sri.Prashanth on 13.01.2011
and it is thereafter that the aforesaid purchasers
had borrowed money from Union Bank of India
and prior to that Sri.G.Bhadraradhya had
borrowed money from State Bank of Patiala.
15.3. The claim of the Tax Recovery Officer is that the
tax due of Smt.Archana Anand Kumar, as
regards which recovery proceedings were
initiated under Section 222 of the IT Act on
02.03.2010, and an attachment order was
passed on 06.04.2010. The borrowal by
Sri.G.Bhadraradhya was post 12.01.2007, Since
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
he purchased the property on 12.01.2007, the
details of the borrowal have not been furnished.
15.4. The sale in favour of the purchasers occurred
between May 2009 to July 2009. Recovery
proceedings were initiated by Tax Recovery
Officer on 02.03.2010 and attachment order
was passed on 06.04.2010. The auction was
conducted by State Bank of Patiala on
15.05.2012. Thus, as on the date on which the
auction sale was conducted there was an
attachment order passed by the Tax Recovery
Officer which was in force. Section 222, is
reproduced hereunder easy reference;
222. Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer.
(1)[When an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in
default in making a payment of tax, the Tax Recovery
Officer may draw up under his signature a statement in
the prescribed form specifying the amount of arrears
due from the assessee (such statement being hereafter
in this Chapter and in the Second Schedule referred to
as "certificate") and shall proceed to recover from such
assessee the amount specified in the certificate by one
or more of the modes mentioned below, in accordance
with the rules laid down in the Second Schedule-] [
Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 86, for certain
words (w.e.f. 1.4.1989).]
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
(a)attachment and sale of the assessee's movable
property;
(b)attachment and sale of the assessee's immovable
property;
(c)arrest of the assessee and his detention in prison;
(d)appointing a receiver for the management of the
assessee's movable and immovable properties.
[Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the
assessee's movable or immovable property shall include
any property which has been transferred, directly or
indirectly on or after the 1st day of June, 1973, by the
assessee to his spouse or minor child or son's wife or
son's minor child, otherwise than for adequate
consideration, and which is held by, or stands in the
name of, any of the persons aforesaid; and so far as the
movable or immovable property so transferred to his
minor child or his sons's minor child is concerned, it
shall, even after the date of attainment of majority by
such minor child or son's minor child, as the case may
be, continue to be included in the assessee's movable or
immovable property for recovering any arrears due from
the assessee in respect of any period prior to such
date.]
(2)[ The Tax Recovery Officer may take action under
sub-section (1), notwithstanding that proceedings for
recovery of the arrears by any other mode have been
taken.]
15.5. Rule 2 of the second Schedule under which the
ITCP-1 that is the order of attachment was
issued is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
Issue of notice:
2. When a certificate has been drawn up by the Tax
Recovery Officer for the recovery of arrears under
this Schedule, the Tax Recovery Officer shall causer
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
to be served upon the defaulter a notice requiring
the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the
certificate within fifteen days from the date of
service of the notice and intimating that in default
steps would be taken to realise the amount under
this Schedule.
15.6. Rule 16 of second Schedule of the IT Act is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
Private alienation to be void in certain cases.
16. (1) Where a notice has been served on a
defaulter under rule 2, the defaulter or his
representative in interest shall not be competent
to mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise deal with
any property belonging to him except with the
permission of the Tax Recovery Officer, nor shall
any civil court issue any process against such
property in execution of a decree for the payment
of money.
(2) Where an attachment has been made under
this Schedule, any private transfer or delivery of
the property attached or of any interest therein
and any payment to the defaulter of any debt,
dividend or other moneys contrary to such
attachment, shall be void as against all claims
enforceable under the attachment.
15.7. A perusal of Rule 16 would indicate that where
a notice has been served on the defaulter under
Rule 2, the defaulter or his representative in
interest shall not be competent to mortgage,
charge, lease or otherwise deal with any
property belonging to him, except with the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
permission of Tax Recovery Officer. In terms of
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 where an attachment
has been made under second Schedule any
private transfer or delivery of the property
attached or any interest therein and any
payment to the defaulter of any debt dividend or
other monies contrary to such attachment shall
be void as against all claims enforceable under
the attachment. The notice for recovery having
been issued on 02.03.2010, the order of
attachment is dated 06.10.2010 having been
served by affixture on 29.04.2010, the above
embargo would come into force on 29.04,2010.
Be that as it may, what is required to be
considered is that the recovery notice was
issued to Smt.Archana Anand Kumar and not to
Sri.G.Bhadraradhya, i.e., to say the notice was
in personam and not in rem.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
15.8. The State Bank of Patiala had initiated Sarfaesi
proceedings against Sri.G.Bhadraradhya and not
Smt.Archana Anand Kumar. The prohibition
and/or embargo under Rule 16 of the second
Schedule would only apply to the defaulter or
his representative in interest.
15.9. In the present case Sri.G.Bhadraradhya is not
the defaulter or representative in interest of the
defaulter, he had an independent right over the
property under a sale deed in furtherance of
which a mortgage was made in favor of State
Bank of Patiala as regards which he had
defaulted, resulting in State Bank of Patiala
having brought the property for sale.
15.10. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for
the Tax Recovery Officer that the attachment
order passed under Rule 2 would apply to the
present facts and circumstances cannot be
countenanced since there is no attachment
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
order issued in respect to any dues of
Sri.G.Bhadraradhya to the Income Tax
Department. It is the default in payment of the
dues of Sri.G.Bhadraradhya to the bank whose
default of payment of mortgage amounts
resulted in the property being brought for sale.
15.11. However, what would also have to be required
to be considered is that by the time the auction
was conducted, Sri.G.Bhadraradhya and
Sri.Mohan Kumar had sold the property to the
defaulter namely Smt.Archana Anand Kumar,
inasmuch as the sale was executed in favour of
Smt.Archana Anand Kumar by Sri.Mohan Kumar
on 15.07.2009, who had already sold the
property in favour of Sri.G.Bhadraradhya on
12.01.2007. Thus, the issue as regards the
right, title and interest of Sri.Mohan Kumar in
executing a sale deed in favor of Smt.Archana
Anand Kumar would also have to be determined.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
15.12. The above detailing of facts would indicate that
though there are several admitted facts, there
are several disputed facts also and these
disputed facts being complicated would require
oral evidence and trial, the same cannot be ex-
facie determined by this couyrt and as such
cannot be gone into by this Court in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The right of Sri.Mohan Kumar over the property,
the right of Sri.G.Bhadraradhya in the property,
the right of Smt.Archana Anand Kumar in the
property would have to be determined in an
appropriately instituted suit.
15.13. The question of the exercise of rights by State
Bank of Patiala under the Sarfaesi Act in the
year 2012, when the sale has occurred in favor
of Smt.Archana Anand Kumar on 15.07.2009
and there being a recovery proceeding initiated
by the Tax Recovery Officer against
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Smt.Archana Anand Kumar on 02.03.2010, with
the attachment order passed on 06.04.2010,
before the sale on 14.05.2012 would have to be
determined in appropriate proceedings.
15.14. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that
there is no bar for a mortgagee bank to
exercise powers under Sarfaesi Act for sale
of the property on account of an
attachment order passed by a Tax Recovery
Officer, any exercise of such rights shall be
subject to the rights of the Tax Recovery
Officer, all of which would have to be
determined in an appropriately instituted
suit.
16. Answer to point No.2: Whether the sale by way
of auction conducted by the State Bank of
Patiala wherein the Petitioner has declared
successful bidder is void insofar as the Tax
Recovery Officer is concerned?
16.1.A sale certificate has been issued by the State
Bank of Patiala the registration thereof has
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
been refused by a sub-registrar on account of
an attachment order having been passed. Rule
2 and Rule 16, which are relevant thereto have
been reproduced hereinabove.
16.2.Attachment order having been issued in terms
of Rule 2, in terms of Rule 16 the defaulter
cannot mortgage, charge, lease or otherwise
deal with the property without the permission
of the Tax Recovery Officer and if an
attachment order has been issued any transfer
would be void as against all claims enforceable
under the attachment.
16.3.A perusal Rule 16 does not indicate any
embargo on the sale but only speaks of the
consequences of issuance of notice on the
defaulter under Rule 2 and the issuance of an
attachment order. An attachment of property
would offer the said property a security for the
claimant in the event of a recovery order being
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
passed. Thus, once an attachment order has
passed, the said attachment order continues to
be subsisting on the property, irrespective of
the sale or transfer of the property.
16.4.The attachment order was issued on
06.04.2010 and will continue to be operational
in respect of the property subject matter of the
attachment irrespective of whether any sale
carried out by State Bank of Patiala in favour of
the Petitioner or not.
16.5.As aforeobserved, an order of attachment does
not ipso facto operate as an injunction from
sale or a restriction on the sub-registrar to
register the sale. What the attachment order
does is to secure the property in respect of the
claim of the Tax Recovery Officer, and any sale
which occurs will be subject to the attachment,
and the sale or transfer would be void as
against the claims enforceable under the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
attachment. This aspect has been brought to
the notice of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is
willing to take on sale the property subject to
any of the rights of any third-party in as much
as the sale according to the counsel for the
State Bank of Patiala has been conducted on as
is there is basis without any representation,
warranty or indemnity as regard the title of the
property.
16.6.Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that
the passing of an attachment order would
not entitle the sub-registrar to reject the
registration of a sales certificate issued by
the State Bank of Patiala after having
conducted an auction, the registration
shall be subject to the attachment order
passed.
17. Answer to Point No.3:Whether the sub-registrar
would have refused to register the sales
certificate on account of an attachment order
issued by a Tax Recovery Officer and an
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
attachment order passed in an Arbitration
proceeding, to put it in other words, whether
an order of attachment would entitle the Sub-
registrar to refuse registration of a transfer of
property?
17.1.In the present case, the Sub-Registrar has
refused to register the sale certificate issued
pursuant to a public auction conducted by a
bank exercising powers under the SARFAESI
Act, 2002, on the ground that an attachment
order has been issued by a Tax Recovery
Officer and there is an attachment order passed
in arbitration proceedings. This issue has been
considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in its well-reasoned order dated 28th May 2024
in W.P.No.7872/2024, more particularly in
Paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 thereof,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. In
a public auction conducted by the 3rd
respondent, the Petitioner emerges as the
successful bidder of the property owned by
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
the borrowers. This leads the Bank issuing a
sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner on
30-09-2022. The Petitioner desirous of getting
the sale certificate registered, approaches the
jurisdictional Sub-Registrar and pays
amounts/fees that are required for
registration of a document. After all this,
when the Petitioner sat before the Sub-
Registrar, he was given to understand that the
document would not be registered. The
reason was that a claim of the Income-Tax
Department still hangs on the head of the
borrowers of the property and, therefore, the
document cannot be registered. Whether
such discretion is available to the Sub-
Registrar is what is required to be noticed.
The document of registration i.e., the sale
certificate had emanated from the proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act. Section 26-E of the
SARFAESI Act, reads as follows:
"26E. Priority to secured creditors.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force,
after the registration of security interest,
the debts due to any secured creditor
shall be paid in priority over all other
debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and
other rates payable to the Central
Government or State Government or local
authority.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, it
is hereby clarified that on or after the
commencement of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases
where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
are pending in respect of secured assets of
the borrower, priority to secured creditors in
payment of debt shall be subject to the
provisions of that Code."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 26E mandates priority to secured
creditors over any other law for the time being
in force after the registration of security
interest. Section 35 of the Act reads as
follows:
"35. The provisions of this Act to override
other laws.--The provisions of this Act
shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law for the time
being in force or any instrument having
effect by virtue of any such law."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 35 of the Act mandates that the
SARFAESI Act will have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any other law for the time being in force.
These are the rights of secured creditor under
the Act. To put in one word - the right of the
secured creditor is "unstoppable" except if it is
interdicted by any order of a Court of law,
which is admittedly absent in the case at
hand. There is no proceeding initiated by the
borrowers before any judicial or quasi-judicial
fora.
10. Registration of a document is under the
Registration Act, 1908. Refusal to register a
document is dealt with under Section 71 of
the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar can
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
refuse registration of a document on grounds
that are set out therein. Section 71 of the
Registration Act reads as follows:
"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be
recorded.--(1) Every Sub-Registrar
refusing to register a document, except
on the ground that the property to which
it relates is not situate within his sub-
district, shall make an order of refusal
and record his reasons for such order in
his Book No. 2, and endorse the words
"registration refused" on the document;
and, on application made by any person
executing or claiming under the
document, shall, without payment and
unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the
reasons so recorded.
(2) No registering officer shall accept for
registration a document so endorsed unless
and until, under the provisions hereinafter
contained, the document is directed to be
registered."
(Emphasis supplied)
Invoking its power to frame Rules under the
Registration Act, the Karnataka Government
has promulgated 'the Karnataka Registration
Rules, 1965' ('hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules' for short). Chapter-XXIV of the Rules
deals with refusal to register. Rule 171 therein
deals with reasons for refusal to register. The
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
reasons are enumerated therein. Rule 171
reads as follows:
"171. Reasons for refusal to register.- When
registration is refused, the reasons for
refusal shall be at once recorded in Book
2. They will usually come under one or
more of the heads mentioned below.
(i) Section 19.- that the document is written in
a language which the Registering Officer does
not understand and which is not commonly
used in the district, and that if is
unaccompanied by a true translation or a true
copy;
(ii) Section 20.- that it contains unattested
interlineations, blanks, erasures, or alterations
which in the opinion of the Registering Officer
require to be attested;
(iii) Section 21(1) to (3) and Section 22.- that
the description of the property is insufficient
to identify it or does not contain the
information required by Rule 15;
(iv) Section 21(4).- that the document is
unaccompanied by a copy or copies of any
map or plan which it contains;
(v) Rule 50.- that the date of execution is not
stated in the document or that the correct
date is not ascertainable or altered so as to
make it unascertainable;
(vi) Section 23, 24, 25, 26, 72 ,75 and 77.-
that it is presented after the prescribed time;
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
(vii)Section 32, 33, 40 and 43.- that it is
presented by a person who has no right to
present it;
(viii)Section 34.- that the executing parties or
their representatives, assigns, or agents have
failed to appear within the prescribed time;
(ix) Section 34 and 43.- that the Registering
Officer is not satisfied as to the identity of a
person appearing before him who alleges that
he has executed the document or when an
executant is not, identified to the satisfaction
of the Registering Officer.
(x) Section 34 and 40.- that the Registering
Officer is not satisfied as to the right of a
person appearing as representative, assignee
or agent, so to appear;
(xi) Section 35.- that execution is denied by any
person purporting to be an executing party or
by his agent;
Note,- When a Registering Officer is satisfied
that an executant is purposely keeping out of
the way with a view to evade registration of
document or has gone to a distant place and
is not likely to return to admit execution
within the prescribed time, registration may
be refused, the non appearance being treated
as tantamount to denial of execution.
(xii)Section 35.- that the person purporting to
have executed the document is a minor, an
idiot or a lunatic;
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Note.- When the executant of a document who
is examined under a Commission under
Section 38 of the Act is reported by the
Commissioner to be a minor, an idiot or a
lunatic, registration may be refused and it is
not necessary that the Registering Officer
should personally examine the executant to
satisfy himself as to the existence of the
disqualification.
(xiii)Section 35.- that execution is denied by the
representative or assign of a deceased person
by whom the document purports to have been
executed.
Note.- When some of the representatives of a
deceased executant admit and the others
deny execution, the registration of the
document shall be refused in toto, the persons
interested being left to apply to the Registrar
for an enquiry into the fact of execution.
(xiv)Sections 35 and 41.- that the alleged death
of a person by whom the document purports
to have been executed has not been proved;
(xv)Section 41.- that the Registering Officer is
not satisfied as to the fact of execution in the
case of a Will or of an authority to adopt
presented after the death of the testator of
donor;
(xvi)Section 25, 34 and 80.- that the prescribed
fee or fine or fee under nay other Act to be
levied before admitting a document to
registration has not been paid."
The reasons indicated in Rule 171 are self-
explanatory. While it is an admitted fact that
none of those reasons found in the statute
i.e., Rule 171 are even present in the case at
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
hand. The refusal to register a document as
observed is dealt with under Section 71 of the
Registration Act and Rule 171 of the Rules, a
perusal of which will nowhere creates any
impediment for the 2nd respondent/Sub-
Registrar to register the said document. All
the nuances necessary for registration have
been complied with by the Petitioner. The
reason for denial of registration by respondent
No.2 - Sub-Registrar is that the dues of the
Income-Tax Department pending against the
borrowers. In the considered view of this
Court, in the light of Section 35 quoted supra
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the said reason
though not in writing could not have been
projected by the Sub-Registrar to deny
registration. The issue whether other
statutory dues pending against the borrowers
would entail non-registration of a document,
need not detain this Court for long, or delve
deep into the matter.
11. The Apex Court in the case of PUNJAB
NATIONAL BANK v. UNION OF INDIA1 has
held as follows:-
"42. Secondly, coming to the issue of
priority of secured creditor's debt over
that of the Excise Department, the High
Court in the impugned judgment has held
[Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, 2008
SCC OnLine All 1576] that "In this view of the
matter, the question of first charge or second
charge over the properties would not arise".
In this context, we are of the opinion that the
High Court has misinterpreted the issue to
state that the question of first charge or
1
(2022) 7 SCC 260
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
second charge over the properties, would not
arise.
43. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court
in UTI Bank Ltd. v. CCE [UTI Bank
Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1182
(FB)], while dealing with a similar issue, has
held that : (SCC OnLine Mad paras 25-26)
"25. In the case on hand, the petitioner
Bank which took possession of the
property under Section 13 of
the SARFAESI Act, being a special
enactment, undoubtedly is a secured
creditor. We have already referred to the
provisions of the Central Excise Act and
the Customs Act. They envisage
procedures to be followed and how the
amounts due to the Departments are to
be recovered. There is no specific
provision either in the Central Excise Act
or the Customs Act, claiming "first
charge" as provided in other enactments,
which we have pointed out in earlier
paragraphs.
26. In the light of the above discussion, we
conclude,
'(i) Generally, the dues to Government i.e. tax,
duties, etc. (Crown's debts) get priority over
ordinary debts.
(ii) Only when there is a specific provision in the
statute claiming "first charge" over the
property, the Crown's debt is entitled to have
priority over the claim of others.
(iii) Since there is no specific provision
claiming "first charge" in the Central Excise
Act and the Customs Act, the claim of the
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Central Excise Department cannot have
precedence over the claim of secured creditor
viz. the petitioner Bank.
(iv)In the absence of such specific provision
in the Central Excise Act as well as in
Customs Act, we hold that the claim of
secured creditor will prevail over Crown's
debts.'
In view of our above conclusion, the petitioner
UTI Bank, being a secured creditor is entitled
to have preference over the claim of the
Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, first
respondent herein."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
44. This Court, while dismissing Civil Appeal No.
3627 of 2007 filed against the judgment [UTI
Bank Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1182
(FB)] of the Full Bench, vide order dated 12-
2-2009 [CCE v. UTI Bank Ltd., 2009 SCC
OnLine SC 1950] held as under: (UTI Bank
case [CCE v. UTI Bank Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine
SC 1950] , SCC OnLine SC para 1)
"1. Having gone through the provisions of the
Securitisation Act, 2002, in the light of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Union of India v. SICOM Ltd. [Union of
India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121] , we
find that under the provisions of the said 2002
Act, the appellants did not have any statutory
first charge over the property secured by the
respondent Bank. In the circumstances, the
civil appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs"
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
(emphasis supplied)
45. Hence the reasoning given by the High Court
stands strong and has been affirmed by this
Court.
46. This Court in Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai
Prabhudas Parekh & Co. [Dena
Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co.,
(2000) 5 SCC 694] , wherein the question
raised was whether the recovery of sales tax
dues (amounting to crown debt) shall have
precedence over the right of the Bank to
proceed against the property of the borrowers
mortgaged in favour of the Bank, observed as
under : (SCC p. 703, para 10)
"10. However, the Crown's preferential right to
recovery of debts over other creditors
is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors.
The common law of England or the principles
of equity and good conscience (as applicable
to India) do not accord the Crown a
preferential right of recovery of its debts over
a mortgagee or pledgee of goods or a secured
creditor."
(emphasis supplied)
47. Further, in Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa
Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [Central Bank of
India v. Siriguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.,
(2007) 8 SCC 353 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 919],
while adjudicating a similar matter, this Court
has held as under : (SCC pp. 360-61, para
17)
"17. Thus, going by the principles governing the
matter propounded by this Court there cannot
be any doubt that the rights of the appellant
Bank over the pawned sugar had precedence
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
over the claims of the Cane Commissioner and
that of the workmen. The High Court was,
therefore, in error in passing an interim order
to pay parts of the proceeds to the Cane
Commissioner and to the Labour
Commissioner for disbursal to the cane
growers and to the employees. There is no
dispute that the sugar was pledged with the
appellant Bank for securing a loan of the first
respondent and the loan had not been repaid.
The goods were forcibly taken possession of at
the instance of the revenue recovery authority
from the custody of the pawnee, the appellant
Bank. In view of the fact that the goods
were validly pawned to the appellant
Bank, the rights of the appellant Bank as
pawnee cannot be affected by the orders
of the Cane Commissioner or the
demands made by him or the demands
made on behalf of the workmen. Both the
Cane Commissioner and the workmen in
the absence of a liquidation, stand only
as unsecured creditors and their rights
cannot prevail over the rights of the
pawnee of the goods."
(emphasis supplied)
48. The Bombay High Court in Krishna Lifestyle
Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India [Krishna
Lifestyle Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India,
2008 SCC OnLine Bom 137] , wherein the
issue for consideration was "whether tax
dues recoverable under the provisions of
the Central Excise Act, 1944 have priority
of claim over the claim of secured
creditors under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Security Interest Act, 2002" held that :
(SCC OnLine Bom paras 19-20)
"19. Considering the language of Section 35
and the decided case law, in our opinion
it would be of no effect, as the provisions
of the SARFAESI Act override the
provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act
and as such the priority given to a
secured creditor would override Crown
dues or the State dues.
20. Insofar as the SARFAESI Act is concerned a Full
Bench of the Madras High Court in UTI Bank
Ltd. v. CCE [UTI Bank Ltd. v. CCE, 2006 SCC
OnLine Mad 1182 (FB)] has examined the
issue in depth. The Court was pleased to hold
that tax dues under the Customs Act and
Central Excise Act, do not have priority of
claim over the dues of a secured creditor as
there is no specific provision either in the
Central Excise Act or the Customs Act giving
those dues first charge, and that the claims of
the secured creditors will prevail over the
claims of the State. Considering the law
declared [Ed. : The reference appears to be
to Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh
& Co., (2000) 5 SCC 694] by the Supreme
Court in the matter of priority of State debts
as already discussed and the provision of
Section 35of the SARFAESI Act we are in
respectful agreement with the view taken by
the Madras High Court [UTI Bank Ltd. v. CCE,
2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1182 (FB)] ."
(emphasis supplied)
49. An SLP (No. 12462/2008) against the above
judgment of the Bombay High Court stands
dismissed by this Court on 17-7-2009 [Union
of India v. Krishna Life Style Technologies
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1952] by relying
upon the judgment in Union of
India v. SICOM Ltd. [Union of
India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121] ,
wherein the question involved was "Whether
realisation of the duty under the Central
Excise Act will have priority over the
secured debts in terms of the State
Financial Corporation Act, 1951" and this
Court held as under : (SICOM case [Union
of India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121] ,
SCC p. 126, para 9)
"9. Generally, the rights of the crown to recover
the debt would prevail over the right of a
subject. Crown debt means the 'debts due to
the State or the King; debts which a
prerogative entitles the Crown to claim
priority for before all other creditors'.
[See Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha
Aiyar (3rd Edn.) p. 1147]. Such creditors,
however, must be held to mean unsecured
creditors. Principle of Crown debt as such
pertains to the common law principle. A
common law which is a law within the
meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution is
saved in terms of Article 372 thereof. Those
principles of common law, thus, which were
existing at the time of coming into force of the
Constitution of India are saved by reason of
the aforementioned provision. A debt which is
secured or which by reason of the provisions
of a statute becomes the first charge over the
property having regard to the plain meaning
of Article 372 of the Constitution of India must
be held to prevail over the Crown debt which
is an unsecured one."
(emphasis supplied)
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
50. In view of the above, we are of the firm
opinion that the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, on Issue 2,
hold merit. Evidently, prior to insertion of
Section 11-E in the Central Excise Act,
1944 w.e.f. 8-4-2011, there was no
provision in the 1944 Act inter alia,
providing for first charge on the property
of the assessee or any person under the
1944 Act. Therefore, in the event like in
the present case, where the land,
building, plant, machinery, etc. have
been mortgaged/hypothecated to a
secured creditor, having regard to the
provisions contained in Sections 2(1)(zc)
to (zf) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, read
with provisions contained in Section 13
of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Secured
Creditor will have a first charge on the
secured assets. Moreover, Section 35 of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002 inter alia, provides
that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act,
shall have overriding effect on all other
laws. It is further pertinent to note that
even the provisions contained in Section
11-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are
subject to the provisions contained in
the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
51. Thus, as has been authoritatively established
by the aforementioned cases in general,
and Union of India v. SICOM Ltd. [Union of
India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121] in
particular, the provisions contained in
the SARFAESI Act, 2002, even after insertion of
Section 11-E in the Central Excise Act, 1944
w.e.f. 8-4-2011, will have an overriding effect
on the provisions of the 1944 Act.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
52. Moreover, the submission that the
validity of the confiscation order cannot
be called into question merely on account
of the appellant being a secured creditor
is misplaced and irrelevant to the issue at
hand. The contention that a confiscation
order cannot be quashed merely because a
security interest is created in respect of the
very same property is not worthy of
acceptance. However, what is required to be
appreciated is that, in the present case, the
confiscation order is not being quashed merely
because a security interest is created in
respect of the very same property. On the
contrary, the confiscation orders, in the
present case, deserve to be quashed because
the confiscation orders themselves lack any
statutory backing, as they were rooted in a
provision that stood omitted on the day of the
passing of the orders. Hence, it is this
inherent defect in the confiscation orders that
paves way for its quashing and not merely the
fact that a security interest is created in
respect of the very same property that the
confiscation orders dealt with.
53. Further, the contention that in the
present case, the confiscation
proceedings were initiated almost 8-9
years prior to the charge being created in
respect of the very same properties in
favour of the Bank is also
inconsequential. The fact that the charge
has been created after some time period
has lapsed post the initiation of the
confiscation proceedings, will not provide
legitimacy to a confiscation order that is
not rooted in any valid and existing
statutory provision.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
54. To conclude, the Commissioner of
Customs and Central Excise could not
have invoked the powers under Rule 173-
Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on
26-3-2007 and 29-3-2007 for
confiscation of land, buildings, etc. when
on such date, the said Rule 173-Q(2) was
not in the statute books, having been
omitted by a Notification dated 12-5-
2000. Secondly, the dues of the secured
creditor i.e. the appellant Bank, will have
priority over the dues of the Central
Excise Department, as even after
insertion of Section 11-E in the Central
Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 8-4-2011, the
provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act,
2002 will have an overriding effect on the
provisions of the Central Excise Act,
1944."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court considers identical
circumstance. The dues in the case before the
Apex Court were that of the Department of
Central Excise. The Apex Court holds that
debt owed to the Crown or the State cannot
take away the right of a secured creditor in
the light of Section 26E and Section 35 of the
Act supra.
12. The Apex Court considering the entire
spectrum of law holds that dues of the
secured creditor, the Bank or any other
financial institution will have priority over the
dues of the Central Excise Department under
the Central Excise Act. The Apex Court holds
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will
have overriding effect on the provisions of the
Central Excise Act. If the Central Excise Act
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
found in the judgment of the Apex Court is
paraphrased with that of the Income-Tax
Department/dues under the Income-Tax Act,
the reasons so rendered by the Apex Court
would become applicable to the facts of the
case at hand as well. The Sub-Registrar,
though not in writing, orally refused to
register the document on the score that dues
of the Income-Tax Department are pending
against the borrowers, is a reason which is
unavailable to the Sub-Registrar, even if it
were to be in writing.
13. The Sub-Registrar can act only within the four
corners of the Registration Act and the
Registration Rules framed by the State. If
none of the circumstances under Rule 171 of
the Rules are found, the Sub-Registrar has no
jurisdiction to refuse registration of a
document; the document in the case at hand
is the sale certificate."
17.2.This Court has considered the interplay of the
SARFAESI Act under Sections 26E and 35 of the
SARFAESI Act on the one hand and Section 71
of the Registration Act read with Rule 171 of
the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Registration
Rules'). On considering the interplay, this Court
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Punjab National Bank V/s Union of
India and Others, reported in 2022(7) SCC
260, has held that the Sub-Registrar can act
only within the four corners of the Registration
Act and Registration Rules. If none of the
circumstances under Rule 171 of the Rules are
found to be applicable, the sub-registrar has no
jurisdiction to refuse registration of a
document. It is not the case of the sub-
registrar that the sale certificate which has
been issued does not comply with the
requirement of Rule 171 or Section 71 of the
Registration Act, 1908. The only contention of
the sub-registrar is that there is an attachment
order issued by a Tax Recovery Officer and
there is an attachment order passed in an
arbitration proceeding.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
17.3.Once an order of attachment is passed, the
attachment order goes along with the property,
and the property continues to remain attached,
entitling the person who is a beneficiary of the
attachment to enforce such attachment in
accordance with law. Thus, by registration of
the sale certificate, the rights of the person or
entity who has an attachment order in his
favour is not taken away. The Petitioner being
fully aware of such attachment orders, would
take the registration of the property subject to
the attachment orders.
17.4.In view of the above, there is no order that has
been passed against the sub-registrar
prohibiting the sub-registrar from registering
the sale certificate. Because there is an
attachment order, the sub-registrar would not
be conferred any authority to reject the
registration of the sale certificate.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
17.5.Hence, I answer point No.3 by holding that
a sub-registrar cannot refuse to register a
sale certificate on account of an
attachment order passed by the Tax
Recovery Officer and/or an attachment
order passed in an arbitration proceeding.
The sub-registrar can refuse registration
only if there is an order of injunction
restraining the transfer and/or an order
prohibiting the sub-registrar from
registering a particular sale certificate,
sale deed, or the like.
18. Answer to point No.4:Whether in the facts of
this case, the reliefs sought for by the
Petitioner are required to be granted?
18.1.In view of my answers to point Nos.1 to 3,
though there are numerous reliefs which have
been sought for in the present proceedings,
many of those reliefs do not survive for
consideration. The State Bank of Patiala, having
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
already issued a sale certificate, there being no
requirement for the representative of the State
Bank of Patiala to be present at the time of
registration. There is no facilitation that is to be
made by the State Bank of Patiala for such
registration. However, the sale certificate had
been issued long ago; it would be required for
the State Bank of Patiala to issue a fresh sale
certificate accompanied by a letter to the sub-
registrar indicating as to why the representative
of the State Bank of Patiala is not required to
be present for registration.
18.2.Insofar as the claim that respondent No.2-Bank
and respondent No.3 are required to be
directed to raise an attachment order, such a
direction cannot be issued since the same
would be subject to the arbitration proceedings
pending which is filed by respondent No.2-Bank
and the proceedings pending before the Tax
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
Recovery Officer. If the claims are established
in those proceedings, then the attachment
order would continue.
18.3.Be that as it may, in those pending
proceedings, an opportunity would have to be
given to the Petitioner to be represented and
place its say on record and which would
needless had to be considered by the arbitrator
and by the Tax Recovery Officer.
18.4.As regards the amount lying with respondent
No.1-State Bank of Patiala, after adjustment of
its dues, these amounts would necessarily be
available to be considered as regards the claim
of respondent No.2-Saraswat Co-operative
Bank and respondent No.3-Tax Recovery
Officer. The title that may be conveyed by the
State Bank of Patiala cannot be said to be free
from all encumbrances.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
18.5.The auction having taken place on as is where
is basis, an auction purchaser would only be
entitled to the rights that State Bank of Patiala
had as regards the said property, if there are
any other claims, more particularly as regards
respondent No.2-Bank and respondent No.3-
TRO, the same would have to be adjudicated in
the pending proceedings.
19. Answer to point No.5: What order?
19.1.In view of my findings to points No.1 and 4, the
rights of the respective parties would have to
be determined in appropriately instituted
proceedings.
19.2.Be that as it may, the sales certificate having
been issued by the State Bank of Patiala, the
sub-registrar cannot have a right to reject
and/or refuse registration of a sales certificate.
The registration of a sales certificate will,
however be subject to all the rights of the
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403
WP No. 38736 of 2013
HC-KAR
respective parties in the property. Hence, I
pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. Respondent No.1-the State Bank of Patiala is directed to revalidate the sale certificate to enable the Petitioner to present the same before the jurisdictional sub-registrar which shall be so done within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. The jurisdictional sub-registrar shall, on presentation of the said sale certificate, register the same in accordance with law. iv. Any rights of any of the parties including that of the Tax Recovery Officer, Saraswat Co- operative Bank Limited and/or any third-party would have to be agitated before the appropriate forum. The rights of the Petitioner
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18403 WP No. 38736 of 2013 HC-KAR in respect of the said property shall be subject to any valid claim made.
v. If there are any amounts which are pending with Respondent No.1-Bank in excess of the amounts due to it, the said amounts can be used to make payment to the Tax Recovery Officer and/or any other parties.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 38