Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In order to answer these questions, already Judgments have come for and against. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank reported in 2021 (2) CTC 493 (SC), has given quietus to the issue which is the law still governing the field and therefore, as per the law declared in the said Esjaypee's case, the document, i.e., the sale certificate produced by these petitioners shall be filed in Book No.1 maintained by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.32749, 32861, 33019, 33020 & 34897 of 2022 and 1862 & 3195 of 2023 Registering Authority and if they want to register the document at their will, as the document is not compulsorily registerable document, such document shall be registered by the Registering Authority by claiming the lesser stamp duty, i.e., 5% instead of 7% and registration charge only 1% instead of 4% and accordingly, such document shall be registered.

19. However, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners heavily relied upon the Esjaypee Impex Pvt., Ltd., case cited supra.

20. In Esjaypee Impex Pvt., Ltd., which was the case that also arose from our High Court, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that, the authorised officer of the bank under the SARFAESI Act would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) r/w Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

21. However in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, which also went from this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. I have already extracted the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, which in my considered opinion effectively sets at naught the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court.

25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.Nos.32749, 32861, 33019, 33020 & 34897 of 2022 and 1862 & 3195 of 2023 provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him in evidence of such sale, would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by him. The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench), Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration (Full Bench) and Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain (Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank.