12/08/2021

When an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required & it does not required registration u/s 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act – Nitin Garg Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor Vs. State Bank of India Member of CoC – NCLAT New Delhi

In this case, the bank took the possession of the property on 27.08.2019. On 24.10.2019 e-auction sale of the subject property was conducted and on 30.12.2019 Sale Certificate was issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 by State Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) under Rule 9(6), SARFAESI Rules and on 24.01.2020 the application under Section 9 of IBC was admitted.
The Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of B. Arvind Kumar vs. Govt. of India and Others, reported in 2007 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 745, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held when a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of the purchaser, the sale become absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely an evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. Further, it does not required registration under Section 17(2) (xii) of the Registration Act.

When an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required & it does not required registration u/s 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act – Nitin Garg Suspended Director of Corporate Debtor Vs. State Bank of India Member of CoC – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

NCLAT set aside the order of admission under Section 7 initiated by a Home Buyer – Ankit Goyat Vs. Sunita Agarwal – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT set aside the order of admission under Section 7 and held that the facts and circumstances peculiar to the attendant case indicate that the Allottee sought benefit from a ‘lucrative Agreement’ as he is ‘securing’ his money by way of this Agreement which gives him a lien over the flat. In Clauses 2(f) & (g) of the Agreement, the Home Buyer herein is given a choice to retain the apartment or to sell the earmarked unit. In a regular Builder Buyer Agreement, the Home Buyer does not have this option of exercising his choice of taking or not taking the possession of the subject unit. In a normal Builder Buyer Agreement if the Buyer does not accept the possession, the EMD is forfeited. In this case, the Buyer gets his money plus 25% assured return even if he chooses not to retain the apartment. This Agreement is only a camouflage of actually financing the construction of the flat. Hence, we hold that the Home Buyer sought to benefit from this ‘lucrative Agreement’ and is squarely covered by the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. [2019] ibclaw.in 13 SC. The IBC proceedings is not a recovery proceeding and we place reliance on the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in ‘Binani Industries Limited’ Vs. ‘Bank of Baroda & Anr. [2018] ibclaw.in 06 NCLAT’ wherein it is observed that the IBC is not a recovery proceeding. In fact, the I&B Code prohibits and discourages recovery in several ways.(p17-18)

NCLAT set aside the order of admission under Section 7 initiated by a Home Buyer – Ankit Goyat Vs. Sunita Agarwal – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top