Sukh Sagar Agro Industries v. Punjab National Bank

What happened

The petitioner was the successful purchaser at an auction of a house in Triveni Avenue, Indore, conducted on 6 August 2025 by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, in a recovery under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The sale certificate was forwarded to the registering authority, which refused to file, register or record it in Book I. The State's counsel relied on Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, a decision under the Income-tax Act, while the petitioner relied on later Supreme Court decisions.

Questions before the court

• Is a sale certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal recovery officer compulsorily registrable, and can the registering authority refuse to record it?

Why the court ruled this way

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank (2021), which held that section 17(2)(xii) read with section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only requires the validated sale certificate to be handed to the auction purchaser and a copy forwarded to the registering authority to be filed in Book I, and in Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhuambal, which reaffirmed that a sale certificate is not compulsorily registrable. It also noted State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings, which says that stamp duty under Articles 18 and 23 of Schedule I arises only if the purchaser presents the original certificate for registration or uses it for another purpose. Since Shanti Devi, the Supreme Court had considered the SARFAESI position, and here the certificate was issued by a recovery officer after a successful auction.

Controlling point

A sale certificate issued by the recovery officer of a Debts Recovery Tribunal need only be filed under section 89(4) of the Registration Act; it is not compulsorily registrable, though stamp duty arises if it is voluntarily presented for registration or used for another chargeable purpose.

Order and next steps

Considering these decisions and the fact that the petitioner was the successful purchaser, the petition was allowed under article 226 by granting the reliefs in clauses 7.1 and 7.2 of the prayer, which challenged the refusal to file, register and record the sale certificate, and was disposed of.

Practical implications

An auction purchaser whose DRT or SARFAESI sale certificate is refused by the sub-registrar should point to Esjaypee Impex and Madhuambal and ask for the certificate to be filed in Book I. The purchaser should also keep in mind that presenting the original for registration, or using it for another purpose, can attract stamp duty.

Limits of this ruling

• The decision applies the Supreme Court's rulings on SARFAESI sale certificates to a certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal recovery officer; it grants the reliefs sought in the petition and does not decide any amount of stamp duty.