IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by its authorized officer, Chennai Regional office, 45, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 30.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The District collector, Collectorate building, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001.

2. The Sub Registrar (Joint II), No.10, Kanchipuram Main road, Chengalpattu 603 001.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration to declare the impugned attachment made by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.15039/2021/1A/03 dated 22.08.2024 does not bind the enforcement of the sale certificate dated 17.06.2025 and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to register the sale certificate dated 17.06.2025 issued by the petitioner under Rule 9(6) of SARFAESI Act in favour of the Auction purchaser.

For Petitioner: Mr. V.Chandrasekaran For Respondents: Mr.P.Harish, Govt. Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner bank initiated proceedings in relation to the Non-Performing Asset of a borrower under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act). In order to enforce the mortgage, an immovable asset offered as security was brought for sale. In the auction sale proceedings, one V.Nagajothi was the successful bidder. Consequently, a sale certificate was executed in favour of the successful bidder and presented for registration. The request for registration was declined orally on the ground that the relevant property was subject to an attachment under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a secured creditor has priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, as interpreted in multiple judgments. Therefore, he contends that the order of attachment cannot stand in the way of the registration of the sale certificate.

3. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice for both the respondents.

4. The implication of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act is that the charge of the secured creditor would take priority over other debts, including crown debts. This does not imply that such attachments by statutory authorities are invalid. Such attachments would, however, be subordinate to the charge in favour of the secured creditor. Therefore, if a surplus is realised from the sale of the secured asset, the statutory authority concerned would have a right to enforce the attachment in respect of such surplus. In case there is no surplus, no benefit will accrue to the statutory authority from the attached asset.

5. The conclusion that follows from the above discussion is that the petitioner is entitled to have the sale certificate registered subject to fulfilment of other requirements in relation thereto. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to re-present the sale certificate for registration. Within two weeks from the receipt thereof, subject to fulfilment of other requirements, the registration process shall be concluded.

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

kj

6. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.

23-01-2026 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kj To

1.The District collector, Collectorate building, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001.

2. The Sub Registrar (Joint II), No.10, Kanchipuram Main road, Chengalpattu 603 001.