AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to forthwith issue a proper Sale Certificate with one single document of the current date to enable the petitioner to secure registration of the same in the name of the petitioners herein. In that light, the petitioners are also seeking for issue of direction to the respondents to forward a copy of the Sale Certificate to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 (The Act'' for short).
The Directors representing the petitioners in the instant petitions are stated to have participated in the auction conducted by the first respondent-bank with regard to the properly indicated in the Sale Certificate as also as the Rectification Certificate. Pursuant to the sale being confirmed, the Sale Certificate dated 31-3-2008 was issued. However, since there was certain error with regard to the discrepancy of the property in relation to the survey numbers, on the request made by the purchasers a Rectification Certificate dated 5-2-2013 is issued by the first respondent-bank. The petitioner-companies contend that though the Directors viz., Sri Vivek Khetawat and Sri Dharmesh Ranka had participated in the auction, the money belonging to the petitioner-company had been paid and such participation was on behalf of the company. In that view, the petitioners seek that the petitioner companies are entitled to receive the Sale Certificate in their name and an appropriate direction is to be issued to issue the consolidated Sale Certificate in the name of the petitioner-companies and also a direction to the respondents to dispatch a copy of the consolidated Sale Certificate with current date.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. Insofar as the Rectification Certificate that is issued, it is pointed out that since an error with regard to the survey number was to be corrected, the same has been issued on 5-2-2015. It is further contended that for all purposes the individuals had participated and the petitioners-company had not taken part in the auction process and the very fact that the company had written a letter stating that the Sale Certificate be issued as per the nomination to be made, will indicate that at this juncture the prayer made is not justified having earlier received in their individual name. It is their further case that when the Sale Certificate was issued on 31-3-2008 and a Rectification Certificate was issued on 5-2-2015, issuing any fresh certificate at this juncture would not arise. Hence it is contended that the very petition on behalf of the company is not maintainable and the same be dismissed.
In the light of the rival pleadings, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel representing the respondents and perused the petition papers.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that in view of the provisions contained in Section 89(4) of the Act, as and when a sale proceeding is completed and a Sale Certificate is issued pursuant to confirmation of auction, there is an obligation on the authority conducting the sale to dispatch a copy of the sale certificate to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to be entered Book No. 1. In thee instant case, such procedure had not been followed at the point when the sale certificate was issued for the first time on 31-3-2008. In that background the further consideration is required to be made in the instant petition.
Insofar as the claim as made by the petitioners at this point to a Sale Certificate in the name of the company, the same cannot be directed at this point in a writ petition since the very certificate issued at Annexe it the first instance would indicate that the names of the Directors viz., Sri Vivek Khetawat and Sri Dharmesh Ranka was indicated therein as being representatives of M/s. Heera Granites Private Limited and M/s. ITR.A Projects Private Limited as per the address furnished therein. In that light if in fact the said persons had invested the money belonging to the company and if the company is to take advantage of the sale for their benefit, the are aspects which would have to be put forth by the company in an appropriate matter as and when the same becomes necessary for that purpose.
In the instant petition, all that is required to be considered is as to whether at this juncture the respondents should be directed to issue a fresh certificate or only a direction to forward the copies of the Sale Certificate and Rectification Certificate which have been issued in favour of the petitioners. In that regard, as seen, when the respondent-bank have completed the transaction as on the date the Sale Certificate was issued and when a Rectification Certificate was thereafter issued on 5-2-2015 to describe the property correctly, the copies of the very same documents will have to be dispatched to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to be entered in Book I. I am of the said opinion for the reason that when the same is concluded and entered in the records of the bank, the bank cannot alter the same to issue a fresh certificate in any other maimer at this juncture. However, while dispatching the Sale Certificate and the Rectification Certificate dated 5-2-2015 the same shall be dispatched to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar along with a covering letter of the bank with the current date and a copy of this order so that the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall take note of the direction issued b this Court to receive the same and enter the same in Book I as there is an obligation in law to do so, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent-had not dispatched the Sale Certificate immediately after issuing the same on 31-3-2008 as required under Section 89(4) of the Act. Thereafter the petitioner relies on the said document for the purpose of registration, subsequent to the compliance insofar as the respondents are concerned to be done under Section 89(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall accept the request of Sri Vivek Khetawat and Sri Dharmesh Ranka as representing M/s. Heera Granites Private Limited and M/s. D.R.A. Projects Private Limited, to seek registration of the same subject to requisite stamp duty being paid in accordance with the provisions contained in the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
However, it is made clear that if any issue arises as to whether the property actually belongs to the petitioner-company or to the individual directors who had participated in the auction process, the said aspect is not conclusively decided in this petition and is left open to such of those parties to agitate the same in accordance with law if the need arises in any other proceedings.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to dispatch the copy of the Sale Certificate dated 31-3-2008 and the Rectification Certificate dated 5-2-2015 to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar where the property in question is situate along with a covering letter a copy of this order within 15 days from the date on which a copy is made available to the respondents. The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall thereupon enter the same in Book-I in terms of Section 89(4) of the Act.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.