The sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act is sufficient for title transfer, negating the need for further registration, and the High Court should not intervene in SARFAESI proceedings when alternative remedies exist.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Ms. K. Samajpaty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. DR Chowdhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1.

2. This present writ appeal has been filed under Rule 2 (iii) of Chapter-V and Rule-R Sub-Rule-17 of Chapter VIII of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.154 of 2020.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the husband of the appellant no.1 and father of appellants no. 2 & 3, namely, Biswajit Ghosh (deceased) was a government contractor, who took loan from Tripura Gramin Bank for enhancement of his business and after making good payment in the loan account, became defaulter due to non-disbursement of the bill towards work order by the State Government of Tripura. Tripura Gramin Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for short) against the husband of the appellant no.1 for which he filed S.A. No.29 of 2019 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT), Guwahati challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.02.2019 issued by the Tripura Gramin Bank, including the entire SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the said bank, which was dismissed by an order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, Guwahati. The husband of the appellant no.1, died on 28.07.2019 and thereafter the names of the appellants were substituted in the appeal before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata as the legal heirs of the borrower i.e., late Biswajit Ghosh.

4. It is contended in the present writ appeal that after death of the husband of appellant No.1, writ petition vide No. W.P.(C) 1199 of 2019 was filed before the Division Bench of this High Court and upon hearing all the parties, this Court was pleased to direct the appellant No.1 to deposit Rs.5 lakhs in the loan account of the deceased husband, which was deposited by the appellant No.1 to the respondent bank and thereafter, this Court granted an order of status quo in respect of the mortgaged property of the said loan by order dated 26.11.2019. For the purpose of reference, the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1199 of 2019 is reproduced herein-below:

'This petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original borrower who had defaulted in making repayment of the loan obtained from the respondent-Bank. He unfortunately expired in a vehicular accident. The Bank had instituted proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery through sale of their secured asset in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act. The petitioners had first approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) challenging such proceedings on several grounds including non-service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. Such petition was dismissed by the DRT against which we are informed that appeal before the DRT is also filed and is pending. However, in the meantime since the Bank was proceeding with the auction sale of the secured asset and on the ground that the Bench of DRT was not immediately available for hearing, this petition was filed for interim protection. On 27.09.2019, this Court had passed an order requiring the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000 (rupees five lakhs) within one week subject to which the Bank was prevented from taking coercive action and to make them status quo with respect to the property in question. We are informed that such amount has been deposited.

Learned counsel for the Bank, however, submitted that before the said order was passed, the Bank had proceeded further in terms of the provisions conta