SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
M/s. H.V. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11251 of 2024
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Nagar a/w. Mr. C.J. Daveson, Ms. Poonam Utekar and Mr. Rikin Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP, Mr. Ajay Yadav, Advocate

Title to property sold at a public auction is transferred to the purchaser upon confirmation, irrespective of subsequent registration of the Sale Certificate, which is exempt from compulsory registration.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(2)(xii) - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Auction sale and conveyance of title - Sale of flats through public auction conducted by Recovery Officer - Petitioners lawfully purchased flats from the auction and are entitled to membership in Society - Authorities erred in not recognizing validity of unregistered Sale Certificate - Society acted unlawfully by refusing transfer of property and membership - Court quashes the orders of authorities saying the petitioners must be acknowledged as lawful owners. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28)

(B) Property Rights - Conversion of title through public auction - Ownership arises upon sale confirmation even if subsequent procedural formalities like registration are not completed. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners purchased two flats via public auction after the original owner defaulted on a bank loan. Despite winning the auction and being in possession since 2007, the Society denied them membership and sought eviction.

Findings of Court:
The Society's refusal to recognize the auction results and transfer title were ruled arbitrary, reinforcing that ownership transfers upon auction confirmation, irrespective of registration.

Issues: Whether the Sale Certificate being unregistered affects the petitioners' ownership and right to membership in the Society.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a sale certificate issued post-auction does not necessitate registration for validating ownership, aligning with established legal principles on auction sales.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' claims regarding ownership of flats. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments regarding procedural compliance and ownership. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's analysis on sale process and jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. legal implications of auction sales and registration. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final directions regarding ownership and membership. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nagar, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr. Mulla, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 – Society.

2. The present Writ Petition assails the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Revision Application Nos. 71 of 2020 and 72 of 2020 by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies upholding the twin orders dated 16.12.2019 passed in Appeal Nos. 42 and 43 of 2019 by the Assistant Registrar. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company. Petitioner No. 2 is its Director. Petitioners are based in New Delhi. Petitioners have sought membership of Flat Nos. 38 and 39 in B wing of Respondent No. 2-Society.

3. Facts in the present Petition are qua the substantive right of Petitioners in the twin flats which date back to 2001 onward. Timeline in the present case is such that Petitioners have been deprived of their substantive right in the subject flats and therefore Court is required to step in. The relevant facts are as under:-

(i) Both flats admittedly belonged to one Mr. Siraj Abdul Karim Mehtaji (erstwhile member of the Society). The said member admittedly stood as guarantor for availing loan of Rs. 14.75 Lakhs disbursed by Union Bank of India to M/s. India Auto Diesel Engineering which was his own proprietorship firm. For availing the loan, he mortgaged both the flats with the Bank. Since there was default, Union Bank of India filed Original Application No. 2 of 2002 in Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai against M/s. India Auto Diesel Engineering and Mr. Siraj Abdul Karim Mehtaji for recovery. On 14.11.2002, Recovery Certificate was issued holding that Defendants therein where liable to pay outstanding amount of Rs. 22,93,399/- along with interest at the rate of 16 % till realisation.

(ii) Union Bank of India initiated Recovery Proceedings No.1 of 2003 against the Defendants before Recovery Officer and after following the due process of law on 01.01.2003, both flats were attached and directed to be sold by public auction for recovery of Bank dues. On 29.01.2007, both flats were auctioned and Petitioners were declared highest bidders for sum of Rs.13 lakhs for each flat. Petitioners deposited the said amount along with 1% poundage fees with the Recovery Officer. On 20.04.2007, Recovery Officer confirmed the same in favor of Petitioners.

(iii) From 2007-2017, certain incidents took place which are described herein under:-

(a) These incidents delayed the transfer of the subject flats onto the names of Petitioners which till today has remained pending. On 20.08.2007, two Miscellaneous Applications were filed before the Recovery Officer by one Babubhai Khushal Solanki and another by Dr. Yakub N. Chikhrodharwala each claiming ownership of the subject flats and seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 2 lakhs against the said flats. On 05.09.2007, Recovery Officer dismissed these two (2) Applications.

(b) On 01.11.2007, Possession Receipt / Kabza Pavti was issued by Recovery Officer in favor of Petitioners and they were handed-over physical possession of the subject flats. While doing so, Recovery Officers had to take coercive steps for vacating and eviction of unauthorised occupants of the subject flats who had parked themselves inside the said flats by trespass without any authority of law.

(c) Two Applicants who filed Applications claiming ownership of the subject flats were infact the Secretary and Chairman of Respondent No. 2-Society. Eventually, they both vacated the subject flats and possession of both flats was hande

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top