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) 5177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, J.
Canara Bank, Asset Recovery, Management Branch rep.by its Senior Manager - Petitioner
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Kelamangalam and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.4075 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.M.L.Ganesh
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Karthick Jagannath, GA, Mr.H.Mohamed Ghouse, Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, Ms.N.Belina, Mr.R.Balachandran

The unauthorized sale of mortgaged property by the mortgagor does not bind the mortgagee, allowing the mortgagee to enforce its rights and register the sale certificate.

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ of Mandamus sought for registration of sale certificate issued in favor of auction purchasers - The sale certificate covers property already mortgaged and not released - Court emphasizes that the sale executed by the second respondent without bank's authorization is not binding - Petitioner bank's interests protected despite alleged collusion. (Paras 1, 15)

(B) Property Rights - The rights of a mortgagee take precedence over unauthorized sales by a mortgagor - The validity of earlier sales does not affect the petitioner's right to register the sale certificate. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner bank initiated recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act after the second respondent defaulted on a loan and executed a one-time settlement, partly repaid before attempting unauthorized sales of mortgaged property.

Findings of Court:
The second respondent's earlier sales did not permit dealing with mortgaged properties; hence, the registration of the sale certificate in favor of successful bidders cannot be refused.

Issues: Whether the unauthorized sale by the second respondent binds the petitioner bank and whether registration of the sale certificate should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the auction sale does not violate the bank’s mortgage rights and stressed the necessity to respect the mortgage agreement.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background surrounding the loan and mortgage. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details on partial mortgage discharge and retained properties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments regarding unauthorized sale by the second respondent. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
4. court's observations on binding nature of sales and registration. (Para 11 , 13 , 14)
5. final ruling in favor of the petitioner bank to register the sale certificate. (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER :

N.Anand Venkatesh, J.

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to register the sale certificate dated 26.9.2023 issued in favour of respondents 18 to 20, who are the auction purchasers.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the respective learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The second respondent availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.300 lakhs from the petitioner bank. In order to secure repayment of the credit facilities availed, the second respondent had offered to give, as a collateral security, the immovable properties at old S.No.102, R.S.No.102/1, O.S.No.102, R.S.No.102/2A ad-measuring 231 cents at Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. The second respondent also executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 08.9.2014, which was registered as doc.No.5572 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent. That apart, the second respondent deposited the entire original title deeds pertaining to the subject properties.

(ii) The second respondent committed default in repayment of the loan amount. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) for recovering the total outstanding loan amount of nearly Rs.3.21 Crores. After fulfilling the procedure, a sale notice dated 11.10.2018 was issued to bring the mortgaged properties given a collateral security for sale. At that point of time, the second respondent approached the petitioner bank for one time settlement (OTS) to repay back the outstanding loan amount.

(iii) Accordingly, the petitioner bank sanctioned the OTS on 13.3.2019 for Rs.380 lakhs by imposing certain terms and conditions, which are as follows :

"a. To accept Rs.3,80,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the account payable on or before 30.3.2019.

b. Rs.51,32,680/- remitted as down payment for the OTS.

c. Release of the property of vacant land measuring 32.00 Ares at S.No.102/1J (27.0 Ares), 102/2A1 (5.0 Ares), near TITAN Township, Hosur to Denkanikotta Road, Mathigiri Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District in the name of M/s.M.D.K. Developers P. Ltd./second respondent on payment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (the amount has been paid by way of DDs and the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner bank).

d. Balance amount of Rs.1,78,67,320/- has to be remitted on or before 30.3.2019 for the release of S.No.102/2B2 measuring 46181.11 sq.ft. The original title deeds pertaining to the property shall be withheld by the bank pending release of 20000 sq.ft. and until receipt of NOC from Canara Bank, Devanahalli Branch as shown in the FMB annexed to this OTS sanction."

(iv) Thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,01,32,680/- was remitted by the second respondent out of the total amount of Rs.380 lakhs and accordingly, the petitioner bank released a portion of the lands comprised in S.Nos.102/2A1 and 102/1J ad-measuring a total extent of 79 cents through a partial discharge of mortgage deed dated 16.4.2019 registered as doc.No.3334 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent. However, the second respondent remitted only a sum of Rs.80 lakhs out of the balance amount and on 30.9.2019, it was credited to the loan account and the balance outstanding amount of Rs.98,67,320/- was not repaid back, which warranted the cancellation o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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