$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16550/2025 M/S SUKH SAGAR AGRO INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocates versus JM FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nitin Kumar, Panel Counsel Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 31.10.2025

1. This petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 arising out of sale proceedings conducted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), whereby the petitioner was the auction purchaser, having been declared as the highest bidder and having depositing the amount of Rs. 40,55,000/- to respondent no.1, and beneficiary of a Sale Certificate issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

2. The grievance, however, arises from the inaction/omission of respondent no.1 (Asset Reconstruction Company) in not forwarding the said sale certificate to respondent no.2 and 3.

3. As per the counsel for petitioner, once the Sale Certificate is forwarded to respondent no.2 and 3, they are required to register the said sale in Book No.1. of their records in terms of Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act 1908.

4. In support of this position in law, counsel for petitioner relies upon the following decisions:

i)Esjaypee Impex (P) Ltd. v. Canara Bank, (2021) 11 SCC 537.

ii) The Inspector General of Registration & Anr. v. G. Madhurambal & Anr. SLP (C) 16949/2022, order dated 11th November 2022.

iii)State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3372 iv) Order passed by High Court Of Judicature at Madras in Sri Balaji Fibre v. Inspector General of Registration & Ors and connected matters, W.P.No.415/2023.

5. Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 appears on advance notice and states that they have not received any request from the petitioner in this regard.

6. Considering, the decisions which have been pressed in support by the counsel for petitioner, in particular the Supreme Court’s order in Inspector General of Registration (supra) which is noted above, there should be no reason why a duly validated certificate is not forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book-1 as per Section 89 of the Registration Act 1908. The Supreme Court has made a stern observation as to why this process and its fructification is denied to successful auction purchasers, as is evident from the extract below:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant endeavor to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un- Nissa1 opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not compulsorily registrable and this Court’s view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank2 opining 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 Purchase with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act and order of this Court in M.A. No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a direction is issued 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