Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Najeeb Ur Rahman vs M/s BANK OF BARODA on 30 September 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 30th day of September, 2026
PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY
PRESIDING OFFICER
MA No.92 of 2025 in TRC No.522 of 2023 (DRT-II, Chennai)
in NDN (TA) No.1661 of 2024 in DRC No.193 of 2027 (DRT-I, Chennai)
in OA No.205 of 2006 (DRT-I, Chennai)
Mr. Najeeb Ur Rahman
No.8/17, Makhdoom Shariff Street
Periamet., Chennai – 600 003
…Petitioners / Auction Purchaser / Third Party
Versus
Bank of Baroda
Egmore Branch, Montieth Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager
…Respondent / Decree Holder / Third Party
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Petitioner praying to issue fresh sale certificate in favour of the Petitioner / Auction Purchaser, a successful bidder in public auction held on 20.10.2010 in TRC No.522 of 2023 in NDN (TA) No. 1661 of 2024 in DRC No.193/2007 in OA No.205 of 2006 in respect of the schedule mentioned property.
2. It is stated by the Petitioner herein that he is auction purchaser of the property more fully described in the schedule to the IA forming part of DRC No.193/2007 in OA No.205/2006 on the file of DRT-I Chennai. It is also stated that as per the sale certificate dated 9.12.2010, the subject schedule property was purchased by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- in a sale held by public auction on 20.10.2010 in execution of Recovery Certificate No.193/2007 dated 22.06.2009 issued by DRT-I, Chennai. Subsequently the case stands transferred to this Tribunal and renumbers as TRC No.522 of 2023 in NDN (TA) 1661 of 2024.
3. It is submitted that the DRT-I Chennai had given a letter dated 9.12.2010 to SRO, Velacherry for registering the sale certificate, whereas due to work schedule, financial situation and lack of knowledge the petitioner has not taken steps to register the same in the name of the petitioner / auction purchaser till date. It is stated that when the petitioner approached the concerned SRO, he was advised to obtain a fresh order of sale certificate from this Tribunal.
4. It is also submitted that the non registration of the sale certificate is neither willful nor wanton but only due to reasons stated above. It is submitted that in view of the son’s marriage, there exists financial need for the petitioner and the petitioner is given to understand that the property can be sold only after registering the sale certificate.
5. Notice was issued to the Respondent and the Petitioner filed AOS stating that the notice is duly served. As there was no representation for the respondent, the respondent bank was set ex-parte on 11.05.2026.
6. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner / Auction Purchaser. Perused the records.
7. The point for consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled to issuance of a fresh sale certificate after a lapse of more than 15 years, when the sale certificate had already been issued on 09.12.2010.
8. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was the successful bidder in the public auction held on 20.10.2010 for a consideration of Rs.11,20,000/- and that the sale certificate was issued in his favour on 09.12.2010.
9. The Petitioner has stated that he did not take steps for registration of the sale certificate due to his financial circumstances, personal reasons and lack of knowledge. It is further stated that, when he approached the concerned Sub-Registrar, he was advised to obtain a fresh sale certificate.
10. However, the Petitioner has not produced any letter, refusal order or other communication from the concerned Sub-Registrar directing him to obtain a fresh sale certificate. The statement that the Sub-Registrar advised him to obtain a fresh sale certificate is therefore not supported by any documentary evidence.
11. The fact remains that the sale certificate had already been issued in favour of the Petitioner on 09.12.2010. The Petitioner has approached this
Tribunal after a lapse of more than 15 years seeking issuance of a fresh sale certificate.
12. Once the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued, there is no justification for issuing a fresh sale certificate merely on the ground that the auction purchaser did not take steps for registration for several years. Issuance of a fresh sale certificate at this stage would amount to issuing a new document in respect of a sale which had already taken place and concluded in the year 2010.
13. In the present case, no material has been placed before this Tribunal to show that the sale certificate issued on 09.12.2010 was cancelled or that the sale was set aside. Therefore, there is no justification for issuing a fresh sale certificate after such a long lapse of time.
14. In view of the above, the prayer of the Petitioner for issuance of a fresh sale certificate cannot be granted. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
MA No.92 of 2025 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-II, CHENNAI
(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 30th day of September, 2026)