925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3113 OF 2025 Begazzo Industries Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the Companies Act, duly amended thereof, having its office at 301, Yash Heights, North Ambazari Road, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur-440 010 Acting through its duly Authorized Director Shri Ajay s/o Shivshankar Khemka, Aged about 48 years, R/o as above. PETITIONER ...VERSUS... 1. The Regional Manager, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, having its office at 5th Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001. Email:ronagpur@midcindia.org RESPONDENTS 2. Area Manager, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, having its office at 5th Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001. Email:ronagpur@midcindia.org 3. Deputy Chief Executive Officer-IV, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai, having its office at ‘Udyog Sarathi”, Marol Industrial Area, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 4 The State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Industries Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032 acting through its Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Madam Cama Road, Church Gate, Fort, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Amit Khare, Advocate with Mr. Piyush Mishra, Advocate, for petitioner. Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3 (MIDC). Ms K. P. Marpakwar, A.G. P. for respondent no. 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2026:BHC-NAG:11519-DB 925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 2 CORAM :- ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE :- 28thAUGUST, 2026. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The question arises in the present petition for our consideration is, whether the property purchased under the auction held by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), sale certificate is required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ? 3. Before answering the aforesaid question, it is necessary to note the brief facts of the present case: 3.1 The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, which deals with paper pulp activity and all allied activities relating to manufacturing, trading of the aforesaid pulp. 3.2 The NCLT liquidated the Company namely M/s Varun Sacks Pvt. Ltd. under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 3.3. Accordingly, a Liquidator came to be appointed for liquidating all assets including Plot No.D-40, situated at MIDC, Butibori, District Nagpur of the Company- M/s Varun Sacks Pvt. Ltd. 3.4 In the auction conducted by the Liquidator, bid of the petitioner- Company of Rs.2.36 Crores being highest, is accepted. 3.5. The Official Liquidator after receiving the entire amount, issued a sale certificate dated 23.08.2022 for transfer of leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner Company. The Official Liquidator also handed over the peaceful possession of the aforesaid property on 23.08.2022. 3.6 Since the property purchased by the petitioner Company is leasehold and that the same was originally belonged to MIDC, the petitioner Company approached the MIDC for seeking transfer of the property in its favour, in view sale certificate. 925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 3 3.7 The MIDC did not act on the petitioner’s request for transfer of the property in its name on the ground that the sale certificate is not registered under Section 17 of the Act of 1908. Hence, this petition. 4. The answer to the question formulated hereinabove is the provision of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act of 1908, which reads thus: “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory (1) *** (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to— (2)(i) to (xi) ***** (2)(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer.” 5. From the language of the above referred provision and considering the above referred facts, there is no difficulty to hold that the sale certificate in respect of property purchased by the petitioner-Company in the auction held by NCLT, provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908 will not apply. 6. Furthermore, Section 89 of the Act of 1908 is beneficial to refer to at this stage, which reads thus : Section 89 : Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed- (1) Every officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, shall send a copy of his order to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1. (2) Every Court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1. (3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists' Loans Act, 1884, shall send a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order granting the loan, a copy also of that order, to the 925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 4 registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property so mortgaged is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy or copies, as the case may be, in his Book No. 1. (4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of the sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1. 7. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd and others reported in [2024 SCC Online SC 3377] has held thus : 20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise. 21. We also do not find any force in the contention of the appellant that the High Court should not have exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as Respondent no. 1 had an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the order of the Company Judge in pursuance of which directions came to be passed by the Registrar. This Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 observed that an alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. It was held that when a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy 925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 5 before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, this Court clarified that this rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 8. Similarly in the case of B. Arvindkumar vs. Govt. of India and others reported in [(2007) 5 SCC 745], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 12 has held thus: 12…………..A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the 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. In this case, the sale certificate itself was registered, though such a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorised by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff's father for want of a registered deed of transfer.” 9. Thus after applying the principles referred hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 17(1) of the Act of 1908 will not apply to facts of the present petition. 10. However, Mr. Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondents-MIDC has drawn attention of this Court to the last two lines of para 20 in the case of Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd (supra) which says that it is only when auction purchaser uses certificate for other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise. According to the learned counsel for the respondents-MIDC, this case will fall under the expression “the 925-WP-3113-2025(JUDG).odt 6 auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose” and therefore the payment of stamp duty would arise. 11. We do not find favour with this argument. Here, in this case, the transfer of name of the petitioner-Company in place of the original leaseholder is a consequential act/step which is to be done by MIDC in the normal course. After such transfer, if the petitioner further transfers such lease or mortgages the property or deals with the property in any nature, then it may be said that the certificate used for some other purpose. In such case, a question of the requirement of payment of stamp duty may arise. 12. However, in the factual matrix of the case at hand, after the issuance of sale certificate requesting the MIDC to record the name of purchaser, in any case cannot be said to be using the certificate by the purchaser for some other purpose. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition needs to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The communications issued by the respondents dated 01.02.2023, 23.05.2023, 05.09.2023 and 08.01.2025 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) We direct the respondent-MIDC to consider the request of the petitioner-Company to record its name as Lessee without insisting the petitioner for registration of the sale certificate or for payment of stamp duty. 15. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Andurkar. Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/09/2026 10:17:07