2016 (4) TMI 268

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 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 [for short 'the 2002 Rules'] to the petitioner in terms of Order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh in SA No.131 of 2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,18,50,000/-. The sale certificate under Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules was issued to the petitioner on 10.7.2014. The petitioner served a notice through his Advocate to the respondents to enter mutation of the sale certificate. Respondent No.3 replied to the legal notice of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng 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 affixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India and others" 2007(5) SCC 745, in which it has been observed that once a property is sold by public auction, in terms of an order of the Court, bid is accepted and sale is confirmed by the Court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests with the purchaser. The sale ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is an auction purchaser of the immoveable property sold by the authorized officer of the State Bank of Patiala, who has sold the property in question in terms of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in exercise of his power under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules and issued the sale certificate in terms of Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules. In the case of B. Arvind Kumar (Supra), relied up....