Union Bank of India v. Noorjahan and Others (WP(C) No.17394 of 2023)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to efface the revenue recovery attachments in respect of the properties from Book No.1 maintained under the Registration Act, 1908 (Section 51). The court also directs the 1st respondent to register Ext.P3 sale certificate as and when presented for registration, if otherwise in order. Upon registration of Ext.P3, the 2nd and 3rd respondents shall mutate the properties in the name of the 6th respondent, de hors the attachments. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Union Bank of India
Respondents
- The Sub Registrar Office of Sub Registrar, Chendamangalam, Paravur, Ernakulam
- The Tahsildar, Paravur Taluk Office, North Paravur, Ernakulam
- The Village Officer, Puthenvelikkara Village Office, Thuruthipuram East, Ernakulam
- The Deputy Commissioner, Works Contract & Luxury Tax, Commercial Tax Department, Ernakulam
- The Regional Transport Officer, Periyar Nagar, Aluva
- Noorjahan d/o Abdul Khader, Arakkal House, Vazhappilly, West Veliathunadu P.O., Alangadvial, Aluva
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • ASP.KURUP
- • SADCHITH.P.KURUP
- • C.P.ANIL RAJ
- • SIVA SURESH
- • RESHMA RAJ
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI. BIMAL K. NATH – SR. GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
One Karthik Constructions (borrower) obtained credit from Union Bank of India by creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 04.09.2010 in respect of several parcels in Puthenvelikkara. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated after default, culminating in an auction and sale certificate Ext.P3 issued in favour of the 6th respondent Noorjahan on 24.04.2023. When the purchaser sought registration, the Sub Registrar refused, citing revenue recovery attachments under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and other government dues. Ext.P4 (09.03.2017) and Ext.P5 (07.03.2018) correspond to VAT and Motor Vehicle Tax recoveries by the Commercial Taxes Department and the Regional Transport Office, respectively. The Bank contends these attachments post-date the mortgage and must be effaced from the encumbrance certificate (Ext.P2) so sale and mutation can proceed under SARFAESI. The Tahsildar counters that the attachments, created under statutory revenue recovery, are lawful and must remain; Section 36 notices were issued to attach the mortgaged property. The Court cites a Division Bench decision in Tahsildar (RR) v. Nizamudeen holding that KVAT charges created before mortgage survive and must be cleared before encumbrances are discharged. The court ultimately directs effacement of the revenue attachments, registration of Ext.P3, and mutation in Noorjahan’s name, disposing of the writ petition with directions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The Union Bank of India contends that attachments under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, KVAT Act, and Motor Vehicles Taxation Act were created after the equitable mortgage (04.09.2010) and hence cannot prejudice the Bank’s right to sell under SARFAESI. It seeks to efface these attachments from the encumbrance certificate (Ext.P2) and permit registration of Ext.P3 sale certificate, with mutation to the 6th respondent upon registration. It relies on the pre-existing mortgage and a Division Bench ruling (Tahsildar (RR), Kollam v. Nizamudeen) that statutory charges survive before encumbrances are cleared.
Contentions of Respondents
The Tahsildar submits that the attachments were issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to recover government dues and that four requisitions (Exts.P4, P5) and Section 36 notices were issued; about Rs.1.35 crore due; such attachments are lawful and cannot be withdrawn, and registration or transfer cannot be effected while the dues remain unpaid.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tahsildar (RR), Taluk Office, Kollam v. Nizamudeen | 2023 (1) KHC 248 : ILR 2023 (1) KER.365 | Positive | Cited to support that KVAT statutory charges created prior to mortgage can remain in effect until encumbrances are cleared, aligning with the Bank’s position. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Union Bank of India v. Noorjahan and Others (WP(C) No.17394 of 2023) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.