ORDER :

N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

The matter is heard through videoconferencing.

2. The petitioner Bank has challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent refusing to register the sale certificate issued by it in favour of the 2nd respondent who was the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Notice to the 2nd respondent is not necessary as there is no conflict of interest between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

4. The petitioner Bank granted loan in favour of one P. Murugesan, S/o. Mr. Pazhaniappa Mudaliar, D.No.3-39A, Gandhi Street, Mallasamudram, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District – 637 503, Salem District and the property in question was mortgaged to and in favour of the petitioner Bank by deposit of title deeds by the said Murugesan on 13.02.2015. However, the said Murugesan failed to repay the amount and therefore, the account had become NPA. Resultantly, the petitioner Bank brought the property for auction on 28.04.2021 and the 2nd respondent was declared as the successful bidder. The 2nd respondent had also paid the sale consideration. However, when the petitioner and the 2nd respondent went for registration of sale certificate, the same was declined to be registered on the ground that an attachment order dated 19.12.2016 had been passed by the Principal Sub Court, Karur in I.A. No. 1155 of 2016 in O.S. No. 679 of 2016. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. The said ground stated in the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the numerous judgments passed by this Court, especially, in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner by order dated 13.11.2019 in W.P. (MD) No. 23896 of 2019 batch, order dated 25.01.2021 in W.P. No. 1410 of 2021, order dated 29.01.2021 in W.P. No. 6976 of 2020 batch, order dated 13.05.2021 in W.P. NO. 11723 of and order dated 19.05.2021 in W.P. No. 11965 of 2021. In the above said cases, this Court had categorically held, after considering several decisions and citing the provision under Section 31-B of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register the sale certificate on the ground that there is an attachment order passed by the Civil Court. In the said cases, it has been held that the rights of secured creditors in terms of Section 31-B of the Act will override all other debts. Section 31-B of the Act is usefully extracted hereunder:

“31-B Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of Secured Creditors to realise Secured Debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which Security Interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority.

Explanation: For the purposes of this Section it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in cases where Insolvency or Bankruptcy proceedings 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.”

When that is the settled position of law, it is not understandable as to how repeatedly, the Registering Authorities are refusing to register the sale certificate on the ground that Civil Court has passed attachment orders. Moreover, Section 34, which deals with over-riding effect of the said Act has also been brought to the notice of this Court and the said provision reads thus:

“34. Act to have over-riding effect.—(1) Save as provided under subsection (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by v