Creditor rights under the SARFAESI Act allow registration of sale certificates despite existing court attachments when they arise post-mortgage.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 28^th day of November 2025)

The petitioner, the State Bank of India, filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in registering a sale certificate issued under Rule 9 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (the Rules) on the ground that there exists an attachment over the property by Munsiff court, Thaliparamba. The 4^th respondent availed financial facility from the petitioner bank and due to default in repayment, proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act , which culminated in e-auction of the secured assets on 1.7.2025. The sale was confirmed in favour of the 5^th respondent on 7.7.2025, being the highest bidder for an amount of ₹65,80,000/-. Thereafter, Ext.P2 sales certificate was issued in the name of the 5^th respondent.

2. In order to get the sale certificate registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 , the petitioner presented the same before the 3^rd respondent, who refused to register. Ext.P3 is the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of the property having an extent of 2.35 ares in R.sy.59/4 of Vengeri village, Kozhikode taluk, which showed that there is an attachment in O.S.No.170 of 2022 from the Munsiff court, Taliparamba and another attachment by the Recovery Officer of DRT – I, Ernakulam. These 2 attachments are dated 31.5.2022 and 24.4.2025 respectively. The property was mortgaged with the Bank on 16.3.2016. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following relief:

Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to register Exhibit P2 Sale Certificate as and when presented, notwithstanding the attachments in Exhibit P3 Encumbrance Certificate.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent in which it is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law as the sale conducted was not concluded and S.A.No. 182 of 2023 filed by the respondent is still pending before the DRT – 1, Ernakulam. In the sale notice produced as Ext.R4(a), published on 5.6.2025, the encumbrance is clearly shown. But after the sale was conducted, sale certificate is issued as Ext.P2 which is not in the format as provided under the Rules. The format is clearly stated in Appendix V of the Rules, which included the list of encumbrances also. But in Ext.P2, the entries regarding encumbrances is omitted. It is also contended that there is no necessity for registration of a sale certificate in view of the judgment of hon’ble apex court in Esjaypee Impex Private Limited v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank ( 2021 KHC 7003 ).

Since the encumbrance certificate omitted to reflex the attachment and the sale certificate is not in the prescribed format, they cannot be acted upon by the 3^rd respondent. It is also contended that though the full bench inFathima v. Canara bank (2025 SCC online Ker. 3453) dealt with a question of effacement of attachment by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and answered in the negative, the direction issued for a writ of mandamus to register the sale deed was not the question that was referred instead; it was only an observation which does not have a question of law.

Therefore, prayed that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in Housing Development Finance and Another v. Sub Registry Officer and others ( 2011 KHC 851 ) wherein, a similar issue arose and the learned Single Judge of this court held that if the attachment of civil court is after the creation of mortgage, the remedy provided in favour of the secured creditor by virtue of the Act is an independent right, which is not adversely affected in