Under Section 22-C of the A.P. Amendment to the Registration Act, registration of property transfer is prohibited if the property is attached under a Central Act (like PMLA), justifying the setting aside of a SARFAESI auction and refund of the deposit to the purchaser.

P C :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Mr. Gadipudi Venkateswarlu for LEO Law Associates LLP, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.22598 of 2024 and Mr. S. Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.22496 of 2024 and Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent in W.P.No.22598 of 2024 and for the 1st respondent in W.P.No.22496 of 2024.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.22496 of 2024 is a scheduled bank and the petitioner in W.P.No.22598 of 2024 is an auction purchaser of a property that was sold by the petitioner-bank, under the SARFAESI Act proceedings. The parties herein would be referred to as the petitioner and the bank.

3. The bank, had earlier advanced certain financial facilities to certain third parties to the Writ Petition. As their accounts had become non-performing assets, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated and culminated in an auction sale conducted on 12.07.2024, for four immovable properties as described in the e-auction sale notice, dated 12.07.2024. The petitioner was the successful bidder as he had bid an amount of Rs.3,47,00,000/- for the said property. As per the terms of the e-auction, the petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs.87,30,000/- towards part consideration after which the authorized officer of the bank issued a sale confirmation advise, dated 12.07.2024, confirming receipt of the amount with further instructions to pay the remaining balance sale consideration by 29.07.2024. The petitioner sought extension of time for payment of balance sale consideration, by way of representation, dated 25.07.2024. The authorized officer of the bank had then granted a further period of 90 days from 12.07.2024 to the petitioner, by way of a communication, dated 29.07.2024.

4. At that stage, the property in question was provisionally attached by respondent No.7-Directorate of Enforcement, under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by way of an order, dated 30.07.2024. The petitioner having come to know of the said attachment, had approached the authorized officer of the bank, by way of a representation, dated 09.08.2024, seeking a clarification as to the steps being taken for raising the said attachment so that the petitioner could pay the balance sale consideration.

5. The Authorized Officer of the bank, came up with a curious reply stating that of the bank was not responsible for any discrepancies in the property etc., and called upon the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration by 09.10.2024, failing which, the amount which had already been remitted would be forfeited. Thereafter, there were various communications between the petitioner and the bank regarding the status of the property and the effect of the provisional attachment carried out by the Enforcement Directorate. A development which requires to be noticed is the communication of the Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Bhimavaram, who addressed a letter, dated 17.09.2024, to the Authorized Officer, informing him that the property auctioned in favour of the petitioner had been attached and the said property was now blocked electronically due to which further registrations would not be done in respect of the said property.

6. As the bank was pressuring