Executive authorities are constitutionally bound to implement judicial orders passed by High Courts of other states.

The Petitioner, a secured creditor of Electrex (India) Limited, initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, following a default of approximately ₹896 crores

In separate proceedings (Insolvency Petition No. 71/2006), the High Court of Bombay adjudicated the borrower’s Managing Director, Mr. Anant V. Hegde, as insolvent

Despite this adjudication, Hegde alienated factory premises in Bengaluru to third parties

On December 17, 2024, the High Court of Bombay issued directions declaring these sale deeds null and void and directed jurisdictional Sub-Registrars in Bengaluru to record the cancellation

Despite receiving the order and subsequent representations from the Petitioner, the Karnataka registration authorities failed to act

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel compliance

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that High Courts may exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within their territories, ensuring that judicial remedies transcend rigid territorial boundaries

Section 17 of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, regarding the vesting of an insolvent's estate in the Official Assignee

statutory duties of registering officers under the Registration Act, 1908, noting that such duties become mandatory and ministerial when giving effect to judicial pronouncements

under Article 226(2), judicial orders of a Constitutional Court carry binding force nationwide if the subject matter or its effects fall within the authority’s domain

The High Court of Bombay validly exercised jurisdiction over the insolvency proceedings, and the subsequent alienation of assets in Bengaluru was an integral part of the same chain of cause of action

executive authorities in one state cannot ignore binding orders of a High Court from another state based on territorial location, as this would undermine the rule of law

The Sub-Registrar’s function in this context is ministerial; once a court declares a transaction null and void, the authority has no discretion but to reflect this in public records

The court characterized the respondents' inaction as willful disobedience and a failure of constitutional duty

The court ordered the respondents to complete this exercise within four weeks and imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the respondent authorities for their prior inaction

Article 226(2) ensures that judicial remedies remain effective across state lines, and statutory authorities are under an unequivocal obligation to implement such directions