Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an attachment before judgment entry can prevent a secured creditor from registering a sale certificate issued on enforcement of security interest.
Analysis: The Court applied the statutory priority accorded to secured creditors under Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It relied on the effect of the non obstante clause in those provisions to hold that secured debts are payable in priority over other debts and government dues once security interest is registered. On that basis, the existence of an attachment before judgment was held not to create a bar to registration of the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser.
Conclusion: The objection based on attachment before judgment was rejected, and the direction to register the sale certificate was upheld in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the registration authority was required to register the sale certificate notwithstanding the prior attachment entry.
Ratio Decidendi: A prior attachment before judgment does not override the statutory priority of a secured creditor to realise secured assets and have the sale certificate registered where the governing statutes confer priority through a non obstante clause.