M/S. Truhome Finance Ltd v. The Inspector General Of Registration

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

1. M/s. Truhome Finance Ltd (Formerly M/s. Shriram Housing Finance Ltd., ) Rep. By Authorised Signatory, Door No.5 Old No.11, 2nd Lane, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Inspector General Of Registration Santhome High Road, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Central) Royapettah Registrar Office, Royapettah, Chennai.

3.The Sub Registrar Purasaiwakkam Registration Office, No.6/13 Adhi Venu Heights Porteous Road, Ayanavaram Chennai, Tamil Nadu -600 023 4.Masthan Respondent(s) PRAYER calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in pending Document No.236406994 quash the same and direct the 1st

Respondent to register the sale Certificate dated 17.10.2025 (pending Document No.236406994 issued by the petitioner to and in favour of the 4th Respondent within a time frame and pass For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Ajmal Azzath For Respondent(s):

Mr.U.Baranidharan,SGP For R1 to R3 ND/W - R4 - Pvt

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the third respondent, refusing to register the sale certificate dated 17.10.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the Official Assignee, who is the executant of the sale certificate has to present the sale certificate for registration.

2. The petitioner is the lender and the fourth respondent is the purchaser of the property through the sale certificate dated 17.10.2025, which has been refused to be registered by the third respondent under the impugned order.

3. According to the petitioner, only by following the due procedure established under law, the property was sold in the SARFAESI proceedings to the fourth respondent. Hence, according to the petitioner, the sale certificate dated 17.10.2025 ought to have been registered by the third respondent, and there was no necessity for the Official Assignee to present the document for registration.

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and on the ground that it is a nonspeaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions.

5. Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and would submit that the matter may be remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration and the third respondent, after hearing the Official Assignee and other necessary parties, shall reconsider the impugned refusal check slip and take a final decision within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. Since no adverse orders are passed against the fourth respondent, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with by this Court.

7. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner was not heard prior to the passing of the impugned refusal check slip. Admittedly, the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition have also not been considered by the third respondent in the impugned refusal check slip.

8. Being a non-speaking order and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, necessarily, the impugned refusal check slip dated 30.10.2025 has to be quashed by this Court and the matter remanded back to the

third respondent for fresh consideration.

9. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 30.10.2025 issued by the third respondent is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration. The third respondent shall issue notice to the Official Assignee and other necessary parties and after hearing their objections, if any, shall take a final decision as to whether the sale certificate dated 17.10.2025 presented by the petitioner can be registered or not, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. In case, the third respondent decides to refuse registration of the sale certificate dated 17.10.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration, the third respondent shall pass a speaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions and the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. 18-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab

To 1.The Inspector General Of Registration Santhome High Road, Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai.

2.The District Registrar (Central) Royapettah Registrar Office, Royapettah, Chennai.

3.The Sub Registrar Purasaiwakkam Registration Office, No.6/13 Adhi Venu Heights Porteous Road, Ayanavaram Chennai, Tamil Nadu -600 023

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

ab 18-03-2026