The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act in relation to the sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the requirement of registration for the sale-certificate not issued by a Civil or Revenue Officer.

Shantanu Kemkar, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner company is seeking direction to the Respondent M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam to execute the lease deed in its favour in respect of Plot Nos. 153-A, 153-B, 153-C and 153-D situated at Industrial Area, Village Pithampur, District Dhar without insisting for registration of the sale certificate dated (Annexure P-2) 29-5-2007 issued in its favour by the Authorized Officer of the Industrial Development Bank of India (for short 'IDBF Bank). The Petitioner is also praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letters dated 25-3-2009 (Annexure P-8) and 21-8-2009 (Annexure P-10) issued by the Respondent informing the Petitioner that the lease deed shall be executed in its favour only on getting the sale certificate registered from the office of a Sub-Registrar, Dhar.

2. Briefly stated a Company Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited having its registered office at Mumbai was extended financial assistance by the secured creditors namely Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited, Industrial Investment Bank of India Limited, Standard Chartered Bank (assignee of ICICI Bank Limited), State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Deutsche Bank (assignee of State Bank of Hyderabad). On making default in repayment and on failing to discharge its liability the Authorized Officer of the IDBI Bank on its behalf and on behalf of all the secured creditors sold for consideration of Rs. 805.81 lakhs the secured assets of the borrower Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited in a public auction in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) read with Rules 6, 8 & 9 of the Security of Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short Rules of 2002) in favour of the Petitioner. In pursuance of the said auction sale a sale certificate (Annexure P-2) in respect of Plot Nos. 153-A, 153-B, 153-C and 153-D, Industrial Area, Pithampur Distt. Dhar was issued by the Authorized Officer of the IDBI Bank in favour of the Petitioner.

3. On the basis of the said sale-certificate the Petitioner purchaser approached to the Respondent for execution of the lease-deed in its favour in respect of the said plots. However, the Respondent vide letters dated 25-3-2009 (Annexure P-8) and 21-8-2009 (Annexure P-10) informed the Petitioner to first get the sale-certificate registered from the Sub-Registrar of the Documents under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and deposit the amount of lease rent and other charges then only the lease deed will be executed. Aggrieved by the insistence of the Respondent to get the sale-certificate registered, the Petitioner has filed this petition.

4. According to the Petitioner the sale-certificate (Annexure P-2) which was issued after a public auction by the Authorized Officer of the IDBI Bank in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the SARFAESI Act and Rules of 2002 needs no registration in view of the provision contained in Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 745 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1306 and of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Chidambara Manickam v. Shakeena and Ors. AIR 2008 Mad 108.

5. The Respondent has filed reply and has stated that the sale-certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the IDBI Bank, is not covered under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act but is a document falling under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and as such its registration is compulsory. It is the case of the Respondent that the Supreme Court in the case of B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Ors. (supra) had occasion to consider the question in respect to the sale certificate issued on the basis of order of the Court and has not