K.V.Ibrahim v. Syndicate Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 38583 of 2015 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- K.V.IBRAHIM, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. VEERAVU, THACHI MANZIL, 31 THAMMANAM DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK-682032.

BY ADV. SRI. P.K. SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. SYNDICATE BANK MANAPPATT BUILDING, NORTH NADA, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680664 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SYNDICATE BANK, MANAPPATT BUILDING, NORTH NADA LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680664.

3. K.K.SUHARA W/O. ABUBACKER, THOPPIYIL HOUSE PADINJARE VEMBALLUR DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK-680671.

4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR-680664.

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PADINAJRE VEMBALLUR KODUNGALLUR-680671.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 38583 of 2015 (W) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE DOC.NO.1215/2012 OF MATHILAKAM SRO. EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D3-6676/12/TR/K.DIS DATED 22.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.38583 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 18th Day of December, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has purchased a property covered by Exhibit P1 in a public auction under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has approached this Court on account of the refusal to effect transfer of registry due to an attachment over the property before the civil court. 2.

This Court is of the view that attachment cannot be a reason to deny transfer of registry. Therefore, transfer of registry shall be effected in favour of the petitioner based on Exhibit P1. It is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief for lifting the attachment before the authority having competent jurisdiction in the light of the judgment of this Court in Madhan v. Sub Registrar [2014 (1) KLT 406].

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms