COMMON ORDER

The refusal check slips issued by the respective Sub Registrars/third respondent is under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioner is Indian Bank, Periyanayakanpalayam Branch, Coimbatore. One Mr.G.Lokesh, the proprietor of M/s.Selvam Enterprises and Selvam Agency availed various loan facilities from the petitioner bank and created two equitable mortgages of the respective schedule mentioned properties in favour of the writ petitioner bank as security. In respect of W.P.No.17064 of 2023, the original title deeds of the property was deposited on 01.03.2019 and executed a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 06.03.2019 registered as document No.1326/2019 on the file of the third respondent therein. In respect of W.P.No.17065 of 2023, a memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 19.02.2016 was executed and registered as document No.2433 of 2016 on the file of the third respondent therein. The borrower committed default in repayment of the loan facilities, which had slipped to NPA.

3. The petitioner bank being the secured creditor initiated auction under the SARFAESI Act and the sale notice was issued on 13.12.2022. In so far as the schedule mentioned property in W.P.No.17064 of 2023 is concerned, one Mr.S.Prakash was declared as the highest bidder in the auction for a sum of Rs.14,43,000/- and the sale confirmation letter dated 24.01.2023 was issued to him and the auction purchaser paid the sale price. In so far as the schedule mentioned property in W.P.No.17065 of 2023 is concerned, one Mr.V.Muthukrishnapandi was declared as the highest bidder in the auction for a sum of Rs.4,78,000/- and the sale confirmation letter dated 24.01.2023 was issued to him and the auction purchaser paid the sale price.

4. The petitioner presented the sale certificates for registration before the respective third respondent. The respective third respondent issued the impugned orders of refusal slip on the ground that there is an attachment under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act (State Act) by the Chit Fund company. The order of attachment was passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Chit Funds Act.

5. In the context of the refusal orders issued by the third respondent under section 22B of the Registration Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the bank enjoys precedence over all debts including attachments. Under section 26 (E) of the SARFAESI Act, the bank is the first charge holder and therefore, they are entitled to auction the secured assets by following the procedures. The petitioner conducted an E- Auction by following the procedures and the successful bidders paid the sale price. The sale certificates were issued and the said certificates were presented for registration. Since the petitioner bank enjoys precedence over all other debts, the sale certificates which were issued are to be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court with reference to the registration of the sale certificate under the provisions of the Registration Act. However, all those judgments relied on were delivered, prior to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 41 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022. Prior to the insertion of section 22B in the Registration Act, there was no such bar to refuse registration. Therefore, the said judgments are of no avail to the petitioner for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought for in these writ petitions.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 mainly contended that even in case, the sale certificates were communicated by the authorised officer under section 89(4) of the Registration Act, the same cannot be entered in Book 1, in view of the expressed bar under section 22B of the Registration Act. In the present case, the petitioner has not stated anything about the attachments made under the provisions of the Chit Fund Act and therefore, they are not e