Sicom Limited vs Sundaresh Bhat on 6 January, 2022
"29. From the documentary evidence on record it is clear
that no 'Charge' has been registered under the provisions
of Section 77(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, in relation
to the Subject Property. The Liquidator has rightly
referred to Regulation 21 of IBBI (Liquidation Process)
Regulation, 2016 and observed that the Appellants
'Claim' was not supported by any evidence as prescribed
under the said Regulation. It is also an admitted fact that
the 'Charge' was not registered under Central Registry of
Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest
of India. We are keeping the ratio of the aforenoted
Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Section
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 470 of 2021 20
52(3) of the Code read with Regulation 21(c) of the
(Liquidation Process), Regulations, 2016, in view. We are
of the considered opinion that the contentions of the
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that
Registration with Motor Vehicle Authority under Section
51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would suffice, cannot
be sustained. Section 51(1) of the MV Act, 1988 only
provides for "entry" in the Certificate of Registration
regarding the agreement. The Section provides how to
deal with the entry. To reiterate, in the instant case, as
the 'Security Interest' was neither registered with the
'Information Utility'; nor under Section 125 of the
Companies Act, 1956/Section 77 of the Companies Act,
2013; no Application was preferred under Section 87 of
the Companies Act, 2013; 'Charge' was not registered in
the Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security
Interest of India, we are of the opinion that Section
52(3)(b) of the Code and Regulation 21(b) of the
(Liquidation Process), Regulation, 2016 are not complied
with and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (Supra) and
this Tribunal in India Bulls Finance Ltd. (Supra) is
squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, we
hold that when in present matter 'Charge' was not
registered as per the provisions of Section 77(1) of the
Companies Act, 2013 and as envisaged under the Code,
the Creditor cannot be treated as a 'Secured Creditor'."