SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
City Union Bank Ltd., Thirupathur Branch, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Mr.K.Vaithianathan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration – Respondent
W.M.P.No.14166 of 2026 | Refusal No.RFL/2/23/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.RA.Gopinath
For the Respondents:Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate

SARFAESI sale certificates prevail over prior attachments; registering officers cannot refuse registration on attachment grounds.

Headnote:The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) governs the issuance of sale certificates for secured assets. Bank presented a sale certificate for registration, which was refused due to existing court attachment on the property. Court found the refusal violated the Inspector General of Registration's Circular No.22482/C1/2022 dated 12.07.2024, affirming settled law that attachments do not impede SARFAESI sale certificate registration. Primary issue: Whether registering authority can refuse SARFAESI sale certificate based on prior attachment. Ratio: Circular explicitly states, following High Court in W.P.No.11056/2024, that 'any attachment existing will have no significance and on that ground the registering officer cannot refuse to register the sale certificate,' binding on sub-registrars. Writ petition allowed; refusal check slip quashed; directed registration of sale certificate if otherwise in order, within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. refusal of sarfaesi sale certificate registration due to attachment challenged. (Para 1 , 2)
2. circular confirms attachments irrelevant for sarfaesi registration. (Para 3 , 4)
3. quash refusal; direct registration of sale certificate. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 16.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent refusing to register the sale certificate dated 16.03.2026 presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that there is a court attachment over the very same property, which is the subject matter of the sale certificate.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground that it has been issued by total non-application of mind to the settled law, which is also confirmed by the 1st respondent’s own circular No.22482/C1/2022, dated 12.07.2024 that when a sale certificate is issued under the SARFAESI Act, it is well settled that any attachment existing will have no significance and on that ground, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the sale certificate.

3. Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He does not dispute the issuance of the circular No.22482/C1/2022, dated 12.07.2024 by the office of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai – 28.

4. The relevant portion of the circular, which supports the case of the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:-

“f) Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.11056/2024 has observed that attachment made by some department and when the sale certificate is issued under SARFAESI Act, 2002 , it is well settled that any attachment existing will have no significance and on that ground the registering officer cannot refuse to register the sale certificate.”

5. As seen from the above mentioned circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, it is clear that the 3rd respondent cannot refuse registration of the sale certificate issued under the SARFAESI Act even if there is any attachment existing over the property. The said circular is also issued only by following the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.11056 of 2024. In view of the same, necessarily, the 3rd respondent will have to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for registration. By total non-application of mind to the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration as well as to the settled law, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned refusal check slip, dated 16.03.2026 refusing to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for registration.

6. Since the impugned order is arbitrary and not in accordance with law, the impugned refusal check slip, dated 16.03.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed by directing the 3rd respondent to register the sale certificate dated 16.03.2026 executed by the petitioner bank in favour of Ramakrishnan, if the same is otherwise in order, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top