[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thr Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Principal ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-AS:3519-DB
1/4 9 WP 12738-23 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12738 OF 2023
Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thr Its .. Petitioner
Authorized Officer
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Thr Principal .. Respondents
Secretary and Ors
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9404 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12738 OF 2023
Sairung Developers and Promoters Pvt. .. Applicant
Ltd. Thr Its Constituted Attorney
Versus
Viday Sahakari Bank Ltd. And Ors .. Respondents
Mr. S.S. Panchpor for the petitioner.
Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl, G.P. a/w Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State.
Mr. Asim Naphade a/w Mr. A.P. Singh, i/b Mr. A.P. Singh & Co for
Intervenor.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2026
P.C:-
1. The Petitioner, Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd., is secured creditor.
Pursuant to a default being committed by the borrower and guarantor,
it initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and, on the
property being put to auction, has purchased the property.
Ashish
2/4 9 WP 12738-23 .doc
These proceedings resulted in a Sale Certificate issued under
Rule 9 (6) of the Security Enforcement Rules, 2002, in respect of the
subject property, and the petitioner bank has approached this Court
with a simpliciter relief seeking registration of the Sale Certificate
executed under Section 13 (5-A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in
accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. The learned counsel Mr. Panchpor for the petitioner would
invite our attention to the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.
3149 of 2023, a petition instituted by the bank seeking a writ of
mandamus, for quashing the impugned communications dated
23/07/2022 and 20/09/2022 addressed by the Senior Police Inspector
to the Inspector General of Registration and Sub-Registrar of
Assurances, under which the authorities demanded a No Objection
for registering transfer documents, as it was claimed that, No
Objection Certificate is required in terms of the provision of the
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial
Establishment) Act, 1999.
Inviting our attention to the detail judgment delivered by this
Court, it is urged before us that it is not competent for the police
authorities to issue directions to the registering authorities, whose
function is to register the documents present before them, and if there
has to be an injunction de hors a MPID Act notification, it must be
obtained from Court of competent jurisdiction and that is the specific
reason, why the impugned letters were quashed and set aside by
judgment and order dated 11/07/2023.
3. Despite this judgment, according to the counsel for the
petitioner, there is no registration of the document, and that has
Ashish
3/4 9 WP 12738-23 .doc
constrained the petitioner bank to approach this Court.
When we confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with
the decision of the Apex Court in case of National Spot Exchange vs.
Union of India and ors1, where the Apex Court has dealt with the
apparent conflict between the SARFAESI Act and MPID Act with
reference to the law prevailing, it is categorically ruled that MPID
Act is enacted as a the State Legislation by invoking the entry
available to it under the State List. It is held that, considering the pith
and substance of the State and the Central Legislations, i.e., the
SARFAESI or the RDB Act, they shall not prevail over the State
Legislation, i.e., the MPID Act, merely because the Central
Legislations are enacted by the Parliament. It is categorically held
that all the statutes operate in distinct field and the provisions of
SARFAESI Act or the RDB Act cannot be permitted to override the
provisions of the MPID Act, which is a validly enacted State
Legislation, and the respective legislative powers of the Union and
the States are traceable to Article 245 to 254 of the Constitution.
In the wake of the aforesaid finding rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the learned counsel, being conversant with the
procedure to be adopted under the MPID Act, 1999, is also conscious,
that the State Government has already notified this property under
Section 4 of the MPID Act, and this gives an option to the petitioner
to raise an objection under Section 7, before the attachment is made
absolute. All the points which the petitioner wants to canvas before us
will be considered by the competent court, who shall consider the
assertion of the petitioner in the petition that the bank, after following
1 (2025) 8 SCC 393
Ashish
4/4 9 WP 12738-23 .doc
the due procedure under the SARFAESI Act, has purchased the
property and has become its owner, and what it is seeking is only
registration of the Sale Certificate.
4. While we dismiss the writ petition, we permit the petitioner to
raise appropriate objections before the MPID Court, which is
competent to consider the said objections before the property in
respect of which the Sale Certificate is obtained and which is sought
to be registered, forms part of the Section 4 notification issued by the
State Government, and before the said attachment is made absolute.
Needless to state, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all
objections before the MPID Court, including the objection that the
property is not purchased by the money invested by the depositors.
In the wake of the above, by reserving liberty to the above
effect, Writ Petition is disposed off.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Ashish
