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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3719

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Kalidass - Petitioner 
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai and Ors. – Respondents
W.P(MD) No.14873 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Senthil Kumar.
For the Respondents:Mr. Veerakathiravan Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. M. Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, Government Advocate, Mr. T. Thevan.

Sale Certificates under the SARFAESI Act must be registered without stamp duty as their entry under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act suffices as validation.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 and 89(4) - Writ Petition for permission to file sale certificate and make entries in Book I without levy of stamp duty - Court held that Sale Certificates issued under SARFAESI Act under Section 89(4) must be entered into Book I by the Registering Authority; compliance with the Supreme Court's directives in previous cases established. (Paras 5, 6, 10, 12)

(B) Interpretation of Registration Act - Sale Certificate under Section 89(4) has same effect as registration, thereby waiving further action or stamp duty requirement. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought judicial direction to register a sale certificate from an auction under SARFAESI Act without payment of stamp duty, referencing prior Supreme Court rulings.

Findings of Court:
The Registering Authority must comply with the directives regarding the filing of sale certificates as per the Registration Act without levying stamp duty if communicated correctly.

Issues: Clarification on the status of Sale Certificates under the Registration Act regarding stamp duty and registration; whether the Registering Authority is obliged to act under Section 89(4).

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a Sale Certificate constitutes a valid registration under Section 89(4) and should not incur stamp duty, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court precedents.

Result: Writ Petition disposed with directions.

Table of Content
1. sale certificate communication under section 89 (4) (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. judicial observations on existing law. (Para 2)
3. supreme court judgments affirming sale certificate regulations (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. concerns over stamp duty by the state (Para 8 , 9)
5. distinction between section 17 and section 89 processes (Para 10 , 11)
6. court's directives on sale certificate processing (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit to file the sale certificate, dated 20.4.2023, issued by the third respondent and make the entries in Book I maintained by him as contemplated under Section 89 (4) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and this Court thereby not to insist upon the levy of stamp duty and registration charges while making the entries in Book I of the sale certificate, dated 20.4.2023 issued by the third respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. Detailed adjudication of facts may not be required since the issue raised in these writ petitions is whether the Sale Certificate issued by the authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act is to be entered in the Book No.1 by the Registering Authority under the REGISTRATION ACT .

4.The secured creditor, holding first charge over the property,initiated auction to recover the dues. The properties were sold through public auction. The highest bidder who purchased the property was issued with a Sale Certificate by the Authorised Officer. Under Section 89 (4) of the REGISTRATION ACT , the Authorised Officer issued a communication to the Registering Authority concerned to make entries in Book No.1 by following the procedures as contemplated under Section 89 (4) of the REGISTRATION ACT . Since, the said exercise was not done by the Registering Authority, the petitioners are constrained to move the present Writ Petitions.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the issue in this regard is no more res integra and repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ petitioners drew the attention of this Court with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs.Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank ,reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“16.We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17 (2)(xii) read with Section 89 (4) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction- purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the REGISTRATION ACT .”

6.The findings in paragraph 16 of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued clarifications in the case Reality Associates Vs. The Assistant General Manager and Authorized Officer in SLP(C) No.29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021. The clarification reads as under:

“The direction has already been passed on 05.01.2021 for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the REGISTRATION ACT . We may note that the effect of filing of the copies under the said Section 89 has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action. The compliance of our direction already made on 05.01.2021 will not be impeded by any High Court judgment. Our order to be duly complied by the registering authority.

The applications stand disposed of.”

7. Subsequently, the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.16949/2022 in the case of Inspector General of Registration versus G.

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