High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, M.J. Market, Hyderabad. Thi-' Deputy Registrar of ChivArbitrator, Erragadda at Hyderabad. The Sub R'egistiar, Banajarahills,Erragadda-Hyderabad-5000'1 B. lril/S.Chandana Electricals, Rep. By lts Prop. By Name P.B.S. Pavan Prabhu Ji, S/O.Raviji Parakki,B-4-3"l5i6i2,Shop.No.46, Laxmi Complex, Erragadda' Hvderabad. Telanoana-5000'1 8. M'r.P B.S.Pavan PTbhu Jr, S/O.Raviii Parakki,R/O.Shop No.17,46 and 48, Ground Floor. B Block, Laxmi Comilex , Fateh Nagar, Flyover Pbridge, Sanath Nagar, Earragadda, Hyderabad-500018. Mrs. Naqa Vishati Prakri, WO. P. B.S. Pavan Prbhuji, R/O.Shop No.17,4*6and48, Ground Floor, B Block, Laxmi Complex, Fateh Nagar, Flyoverpbridge, Sanath Nagar, Earragaddq-500-01 8 Mr.Venu-Gopdl Peddeneni,, S/O.Chandra Mouli,R/O,Shop No.'l 7,46 and 48 Ground Floor, B Block, Laxmi Complex, Fateh Nagar, Flyover Pbridge, Sanath Nagar, Earragadda, Hyderabad-S00018. Mr. Sami Faisal Jamdar, S/o. Md.Shafi Jamdar,294, Muslim Pacca pet, Solapur -413005 I 1 0. M/s Margdarshi Chit funds pvt limited,, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Having its Office at o 6-3-883/5, Venkat Plaza, lst Floor, (Beside Pavani Plaza) Punjagutta, Hyderabad 500082. R10 is impleaded as per C.O.dt. 18.03.2025 in lA No.212025. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ...RESPONDENTS of mandamus, as the re No.4,not accepting and the registering the sale deed based on ,n" ,",..Oondent r certificate issued by the petitioner in pursuance to the auction conducted under the sARFEAST Act to the respondent no_g ( successful bidder) of the propertv' bearing sHop No.46 rN GROUND FLOOR, B BLOCK oF LAXMT COMPLEX STTUATED AT ERRAGADDA HYDERABAD, siruated ar NEAR FATEH NAGAR FLYOVER BRIDGE, SANATH NAGAR, EARRAGADDA, HYDERABAD' on the pretext of an attachment order dated 08-05-20.17 rn |A.NO.59 OF 2017 in ABR/CF No.262 of 2017,passed by the respondent No.3,despite of the notice rt.rari rla 4..^^, jurisdictionorpower,..;:,i,:::,'J,,l3,l,Zi';,:il:l:Hr;":::::,;;H:, Petitioner rights granted u rndia and consequenry.:::#::11;JiJ_yl""nd 300 (A) of constitution of rhe sare cerrificate submitted the petitioner (successful bidder). "" ,"r:f ;";:":.j::i:;:::"; IANo: 10F 2025 petition under Se t tJ: the arr da vit r ruo n ., ppltlo:, f: ;i,,:,"::il J.,,;::'r,:::: :::::; the respondent no.4 to accept the sale certifice bearins sHop No 46 rN GRouND FLooR, , f#;"J,:Xil^:J;?,r.J SITUATED AT ERRAGADDA , HYDERABAD situated NEAR FATEH NAGAR FLYOVER BR,DGE, SANATH NAGAR, EARRAGADDA, H'DERABAD, in favour of the respondent no.9 with immediate effect, pending disposar of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt p. RAMACHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGp FOR STAMPS AND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 9:__ The Court made the following: ORDER REGISTRATION THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3L64 of 2o25 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the material on record.

2. The notices sent to the respondent Nos.5 to 9 were returned with an endorsement ,unclaimed, and the notice sent to the. respondent No.10 was served, but none appears for the respondent No. 10.

3. This writ petition is filed questionirrg the action of the respondent No.4 in not registering the sale deed based on the sale certificate issued by the petitioner pursuant to the auction conducted under the SARFtrASI Act to the respondent No.9 (successful bidder) pertaining to the property bearing Shop No.46 in Ground F.loor .,B,, Block of Laxmi Complex, Brragadda, Hyderabad, situated near Fateh Nagar Flyover Bridge, Salath Nagar, on the pretext of attachment order dated 0g.05 .2OlZ in 1.A.No.59 of 20t7 in ABR/CI.- No.262 of 2OlZ passed by I i .t i 2 SK, J W.P.No.3164 2025 the respondent No.3 despite of the notice dated 06.12.2024 as illegal arld arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.S to 8 have approached the petitioner- Finance Company for the purpose of finance facility and obtained mortgage loan of Rs.3O,OO,OOO/- on

06.08.2014 and the respondent No.6 has mortgaged the subject property through registered mortgage deed bearing No.3O33/2O14 dated OZ.Oa.2OI4. He further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner-Company has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAtrSI Act ancl took over the possession of the subject property and later the petitioner has sold the property by way of auction in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. In the auction, the respondent No.9 stood as highest bidder and the petitioner-Company has issued sale certificate dated 12.09.2024 in his favour and confirmed the sale after payment of full amount. After issuance of sale certificate, the petitioner-Company 3 SK, J W.P.No.3 i64-2O25 and the resPondent No.9 took steps for registration of the sale certificate and approached the respondent No'4, but the respondent No.4 has refused to receive the said document on the pretext that the property is under attachment by virtue of Orders in I.A.No.59 of 2OI7 rn ABR/CF No.262 ol 2Ol7 passed by the respondent No'3- Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.4 is contrar5r to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg tlnion Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors',l and the same is followed by another Division Bench of this Court in.W.P.No.38125 of'2018 dated 14.1O.2019 and requested to direct the respondent No.4 to register the sale certihcate in favour of the respondent No.9'

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Plead.er for Stamps and Registration submits that Lhough the petitioner herein presented a sale certilicate ' zors 1s1 nrr zzs 1 4 SK, J W.P-No.3164 2025 dated 12.09.2024 wnder SARFAESI Act and the same was accepted by the respondent No.4 lor scrutiny, during the scrutiny of the said document, it is lound that as per the orders dated 08.05.2017 in I.A.No.59 of 2Ol7 in ABR/CF No.262 of 21.7, the property mentioned in the sale certificate is under attachment. The subject property of the writ petition is kept in the prohibited property list on the basis of Attachment Orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda t Hyderabad (South). The sa-le certihcate presented by the petitioner cannot be registered until and unless the Attachment Orders are set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration further submits that though the sale certihcate was issued under SARFAESI Act, it cannot be registered, as the property involved in the sale certificate is already in prohibited list on the website of the IGRS and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there 5 SK, J W.P.No.3164 2025 is no dispute with regard to the sale certificate issued by No.9 for the petitioner-Company to the respondent registration of the subject propertY as per SARFAESI Act. as contemPlated The respondent Nos'S to 8 have mortgaged the CompanY. The subject property with the petltloner petitioner by following the procedure under SARFAESI Act conducted auction for the subject property and issued sale certificate .in favour of respondent No.9. Now, the respondent No'4 has refused to register the sa-le certificate on the ground that there is attachment Order with respect to the subject property and until the same was vacated' it cannot be possible to register the sale certificate dated 12 09'2024 issued in favour of respondent No 9' The said contention of respondent No.4 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg ttnion Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar' PeddaPalli and Ors' (suPra 7)' g.TherelevantportionoftheJudgmentinCitgUnion BankLitnitedVsSubRegistror,Pedd,apalliandors. (suPra I/ is as follows: 6 S I(, J W.P.No.3164 2025 '1 "8. It is needless to obserue that the ciuil Court has no juisdiction to deal_uith subject matters pertatning to the SARFAESI Act. In the pr"""ni ".orr"d. creditor uas not a parta to the ciuil suits before the Coufis berout and thus the orders of attachment Uiloo iirag^"nt are not binding on the seanred creditor/ Bank: M;;; the cause of action before the Courts belotu is not ut,iihin th" i1 "iii, SARFAESI Act. "r.rorio, th[ "", 1 O. Upon fair reading of S.O. 2 19 in the liqht of Section 64 of CPC, this Court is of the uiew that it onli pertatns to a ciuil dispute bettueen the priuate parties ,ni'ri io"" not incrud,e -o an institutional sal.e und_er statute_ Though Section 64 comes into plag only after the alienation of the property under attachment amoqst the priuate p"r.on", the said_ legal position does not creati an "iborgo upon the Reg_istror to proceed_tuith the registratton of sale ceftificates under the SARFHESI Act as thJ bank is ioi a party to the suit and the sale is not being effected iy a partg to the attachment order. 12. In sim.ilar ciranmstances, the Kerala High Court in The South Indian Bank L.td. _u.-Th: Sub Registrir (3) Wp (C) No. 3875 of 2Oj7 dated 24.1j.2Oj6, "oiia."l"a ihe que.stion uthether a sale certifi.cate is liable to b" regist"r.d. or not in .of .the order of attachment before juai^"nt passed by the ciuil Court and held. that the slcurid "iid rto, is entitled to proceed uith the registration and the Registration Authoitg cannot stall the process of registration uncler the garb of an order of attachment passid- bi the ciuil Court.,, The above said finding of the Division Bench of this Court would squarely apply to the instant case and the Registration Authority cannot stall the process oi. registration of the petitioner_Company in view of the attachment order.

10. In the instant case also, the petitioner_Company by - following the SARFAESI Act conducted auction for the I 1 SK, J W. P. No.3164-2025 subject property and issued sale certihcate in favour of the respondent No.9. In view of the settled law' the respondent authorities have no power to refuse the registration of the sale certihcate under SARFAtrSI Act on the ground of attachment orders of the Civil Court or other authorities for the same property' In view of the same, the Registering Authority has to register the sale certihcate issued by the petitioner-Company in favour of the respondent No.9 without taking into account of the attachment order dated 08'05'20 17 in I'A No'59 of 2017 in ABR/CF No.262 of 2Ol7 passed by the respondent No.3.

11. In view of the above hndings, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to register the sale certificate dated l2'O9 '2024 presented by the petitioner-Company in favour of the respondent No.9 as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act the Attachment Order without reference to dated 08.05.2017 in I'A'No'59 of 2Ol7 in ABR/CF' No.262 of 2Ol7 passed by the respondent No'3' '-l 8 SK, J W.P.No.3l6.1 202 5

12. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 1') Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand ciosed //TRUE COPY// SD/T. SRIDEVI TANT REGISTRAR A SECTI N OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration, etariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and lnspector General, Stamps and Registration Department, [Vl.J. lt/larket, Hyderabad. The Deputy Registrar of ChiUArbitrator, Erragadda at Hyderabad. The Sub Registrar, Banajarahills,Erragadda-Hyderabad-50001 B. One CC to Sri P. Ramachandran, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP for Stamps And Registration, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies oT TJ BS 2 3 4 5 f) 7 HIGH COURT DATED:1 7l06tZO2S ! I ORDER WP.No.31G4 of 2OZs Il1Ro 4Is

16. o 1! IUE M ( z a L +{, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS D-