9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, For The Respondent : Mr.Suresh Singla, Addl. A.G. Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The land and building of rice sheller of M/s Sai Ram Rice General Mills, measuring 37 kanals 4 Marlas comprising in Khata No.30/30, 700/760, Khasra No.55//23/2 (6-0), 24 (8-0), 25 (7-4), 74//3 (8-0), 4 (8-0), situated in revenue estate of Village Talwan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, were sold by way of auction by the authorized officer of the State Bank of Patiala, exercising the power under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for Short the 2002 Act ] read with Rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 [f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1880 and prayed the respondents to enter the sale certificate, issued to the petitioner, in Book No.1 and to sanction the mutation. Since the respondents did not reply thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is averred that after the instructions issued vide Memo No. 24/151/2012-S.T.- 1/8905-26 dated 24.7.2014 another instruction was issued substituting it vide Memo No. 24/151/2012-S.T.-1/8927-9215 dated 24.7.2014 directing that Section 89(4) of the Act be read instead of Section 17(4) of the Act, according to which whether the sale certificate, issued by the Civil/Revenue Court, is registered or pasted in Bahi No.1, Stamp Duty is required to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be pasted in Book No.1 and no more. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s P.M. Associates, Udhagamandalam Vs. IFCI Limited Chennai 34 and others 2014(10) RCR (Civil) 1861. In this case, the sale certificate was issued under Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules. The Division Bench after taking into consideration various judgments held that the sale certificate was issued by the authorized officer, who was neither civil or revenue officer, therefore, the registration of sale certificate was not exempted under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act and thus it requires registration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s P.M. Associates, Udhagamandalam (Supra), in which the Acts and the Rules were involved as the immoveable property was sold by way of public auction by the authorized person of the Bank, pursuant to an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and after considering the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is held that the authorized officer would not be a civil or revenue officer and thus the sale certificate issued by him would require registration. In the presence of a direct judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in this regard, which is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
