WP(C).Nos. 3931/2014 (N) and 8729/2014 The judgments in WP(C).Nos. 3931/2014 (N.K. Viswanathan Nair, Manager of Palore Higher Secondary School) and 8729/2014 (P. Satheesh Kumar, Drawing Teacher) concern government orders seeking recovery of salary payments and continuity benefits in a school staff situation. The impugned GO (G.O.(Rt)18/14/G.Edn., dated 01.01.2014) held the Manager liable for excess salary paid to Satheesh Kumar during a period when he was treated as a fresh entrant under a Teachers Package, with effective dates contested by earlier court directions. The petitioners challenged the legality of the government order and argued that they were acting under court directions and that the teacher should be treated with continuity under a clubbing arrangement as per prior judgments. The court methods through the tangled history of appellate and original petitions, including Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009) and State of Kerala v. Satheesh Kumar (2011), which impacted the entitlement framework but did not negate the teacher’s rights. The judge ultimately found merit in both petitions in part: quashing the liability against the Manager in Ext.P8 to the extent of salary liability, and directing reconsideration of the continuity/clubbing issue for the teacher with procedural safeguards, including hearing, and possible salary disbursement if eligible from 01.10.2012. The decision underscores that court directions inform administrative orders and that further orders should reflect the correct legal position on continuity and salary entitlements.
This criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.4225 of 2021) arising from Crime No.1418/2016 of Puthencruz Police Station and SC No.770/2017 before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor, challenges an order recalling a prosecution witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The sole accused, Akhil Vincent, is alleged to have committed rape and related offences under IPC sections 370(1), 376(2)(n), 417 and 506(1). The prosecution contends that there are discrepancies in the dates of occurrence in the evidence and has sought recall of PW1 to rectify these inconsistencies, arguing the omission to question on the date occurred during earlier proceedings. The defense contends that allowing recall at this late stage would amount to filling lacunae and prejudice the accused since evidence is largely complete and arguments have proceeded. The judgment surveys longstanding principles governing Section 311 Cr.P.C, citing Raja Ram Prasad Yadav, Rajendra Prasad and Jamatraj Govani to stress cautioned, just-decision-driven exercise of recall power, and the necessity to safeguard fair trial rights. Ultimately, the High Court sets aside the recall order (Annexure A4) and allows the Crl.M.C., thereby preventing further recall of PW1 and concluding the petition.
The petitioner, Renu P. Gopalan, challenged the Government’s appointment of a Member to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after a selection process, allegedly re-notified following cancellation. The petitioner claimed she had the highest marks (as per Ext P5) but was overlooked in favor of the 4th respondent, despite the selection committee forwarding a panel of qualified candidates for appointment. She contended that the Government erred in appointing a person not the top-ranked candidate and that the reasons for bypassing the recommendation were unsustainable. The Government defended that the selection committee’s role is to finalize a panel, not to rank candidates, and that the appointing authority (the State Government) is free to appoint any candidate from the panel, especially when there are grounds, including alleged misconduct, to reject portions of the panel. The Court examined the statutory framework—Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and Rule 17 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rules, 2005—and relied on precedents (Chandramohan Nair v. State of Kerala; Chandramohan Nair v. George Joseph; State of Kerala v. Reghu Varma) to reiterate that appointments must be made on the Selection Committee’s recommendation, but that the Government retains authority to act on grounds recorded. Ultimately, the Division Bench concluded no interference was warranted, dismissing the petition and upholding the Government’s appointment.
This writ petition is filed by The Federal Bank Limited and an auction purchaser seeking to challenge the refusal to register a Sale Certificate (Ext.P2) issued in respect of a property mortgaged with the Bank. The Bank asserts that an equitable mortgage existed in favour of the original owners prior to several attachments imposed by Civil Courts, and that such attachments occurred after the mortgage, giving the Bank a first charge to bring the property to sale under the SARFAESI Act. The Sub Registrar refused registration on the ground of attachments. The Bank cites Ext.P4 Encumbrance Certificate showing attachments appear after 2009, arguing those post-2009 encumbrances should be effaced in light of settled law, including Secretary, Keechery Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar Alias Sajitha P.M., to enable registration of Ext.P2. Respondents, including officials and several private entities, largely did not participate or argued that attachments impede registration and that the sale could violate SARFAESI, warranting caution or remedies outside writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterates a line of authorities establishing that a pre-existing equitable mortgage confers a first charge on the asset, permitting SARFAESI sale despite post-2009 attachments. Holding that the attachments are post-2009 and unchallenged, the Court allows the petition, directing registration of Ext.P2 within one month and the erasure of post-2009 attachments, with a fresh Encumbrance Certificate issued to the second petitioner, while preserving respondents’ rights to pursue further remedies.
This is a Kerala High Court arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by three applicants who availed financial assistance from Agro Indus Credit Ltd. Disputes arose under Annexure A; Annexure C served a notice alleging large sums due and invoked clause 31 to submit the disputes to arbitration. The applicants concede Annexure A is valid and contemplates arbitration but argue it does not nominate any arbitrator. Respondent unilaterally nominated an arbitrator in Annexure C, which the applicants resisted in Annexure D by proposing another person and stating that if the nomination is unacceptable, the matter should be referred to a court for appointment. The applicants therefore sought the Court’s appointment of a sole independent arbitrator under Section 11. The court notes that amendments to the Act, particularly Section 12(5), prohibit party-nominated arbitrators and relies on TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd (2018) 8 SCC 377 and Tulsi Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Appu Benny Thomas (2021(5) KHC 404) to affirm this position. Consequently, the court disregards the clause 31 stipulation, appoints a sole arbitrator (Justice N. K. Balakrishnan) in Ernakulam, directs disclosure under Section 11(8) read with 12(1), and sets steps for commencement (appearance on 05.11.2021). The prior arbitrator’s mandate is terminated, and arbitration proceeds under the appointed arbitrator.
This High Court of Kerala revision concerns the eviction of the tenant, Chathoth Saleem, from a Payyoli shop under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court had dismissed the RCP petition seeking eviction on grounds 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v). The Appellate Authority reversed the 11(4)(iii) finding and allowed eviction thereunder, while maintaining the other grounds. The tenants challenged the Appellate Authority’s order only to the extent of 11(4)(iii) in revision under section 20 of the Act. The respondent-landlords contended that pleadings in rent control proceedings need not be meticulous and that, once the petitioner admitted possession of a larger building used as a godown by a partnership, the landlord had established that the rooms were reasonably sufficient for the tenant’s requirements. The court traced several authorities (Santha, Abdul Gafoor, Ganesh, Susheela, Firm Sagarmal Vishnu Bhagwan, Mathew, Zahed, Abdussalam, Vackachan, Parvathi Krishnan, Kanhangad Co-op, Goa Urban Bank, Shaik Joffer) to delineate when revision lies and how concurrent findings may be challenged. The court ultimately held that the revision petition cannot overturn concurrent findings, upheld the Appellate Authority’s 11(4)(iii) eviction order, and granted four months for vacating.
This writ appeal arises from an intra-court challenge to a Settlement Commission order under Section 245D/245C of the Income Tax Act. The appellants, Ayurvedic Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd. and three allied entities (along with a named individual), filed for settlement under Section 245C for the block period 1.4.1990 to 25.4.2000. The Settlement Commissioner admitted the application and, in Ext.P1, accepted the case and determined the terms for settlement. A core controversy concerns advances from others amounting to Rs. 3,54,59,150, later revised to Rs. 4,13,52,150, with details allegedly evidenced in seized records (promissory notes, creditor confirmations). The CIT’s Rule-9 report claimed creditors’ details were not furnished, undermining creditworthiness; the AR contended that records (AM83/85/89, BM12/23, etc.) and promissory notes in M68 supported the outflow. The Single Judge remitted Ext.P1 for fresh consideration, citing Om Prakash Mittal to stress that the Commission must consider misrepresentation/fraud and provide reasons for its conclusions. The Division Bench upheld the remand, emphasizing that Ext.P1 did not disclose reasons or adequately analyze the genuineness of loans, and that judicial review under Articles 226/245D requires reasons and adherence to the Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, with no costs, and affirmed remand to the Settlement Commission for re‑consideration of advances from others in light of statutory requirements.
BAIL APPL. NO. 7065 OF 2021 Ratheesh K. K., sole accused in S.C. No. 5/2021, approached the Kerala High Court for regular bail under CrPC Section 439(1-A) after being in custody since 6 November 2020 for alleged rape of a 6½-year-old girl on 4 November 2020. The victim and his family, residents of Nepal, reportedly left the locality, complicating witness availability. The counsel for the petitioner argued that prolonged detention while trial prospects remain uncertain violates Article 21 and that bail should be the rule rather than the exception; citing Gurbakh Singh Sibbia, Shaheen Welfare Association, and Association v Union of India to stress the right to liberty and the need for a fair process even for under-trial prisoners. The Public Prosecutor urged caution, noting the seriousness of offences against a minor and the risk of absconding or witness interference, relying on established bail principles in Virupakshappa Gouda, Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala, and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar. The judge surveyed these authorities, emphasising that bail is not an inexorable formula and must balance liberty with public safety and the progress of the investigation. Finding that the investigation had concluded, a final report filed, and no certainty of immediate trial, the court allowed regular bail on conditions, including bond, sureties, regular reporting, no witness intimidation, passport surrender, ongoing attendance, and prohibitions on committing other crimes, with monitoring to ensure trial progress.
This Public Interest Litigation filed by Public Interest Protection Association (a social service body) challenges Government Order GO 394/2008 (dated 20.11.2008) and subsequent District Collector proceedings (05.12.2008) that purportedly assign approximately 1664 acres of Government land in Kannan Devan Hills (KDH) village, Vattavada and Keezhanthoor, to eligible landless persons including Adivasis, SC/ST and plantation labourers. The petitioner argues that the lands identified for assignment are not “assignable lands” under the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 (Act 5 of 1971), since Section 9 restricts assignment to agriculturists and agricultural labourers and the lands in question either were not resumed under the Act or fall outside its scope. The petition frames a history of encroachments, pattayams, and environmental concerns, and cites the decision in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT 377), which held that lands with no direct connection to promoting agriculture may be restrained from such use. Respondents contend that the lands in question fall under Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules, not the KDH RL Act, and that due process was followed—applications were invited, verification conducted, and 1044 assignments issued after scrutiny. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no legal infirmity in the challenged orders and stating that the actions were in accordance with law.
This is a Rent Control Revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging an eviction order under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) passed by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kayamkulam, and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-I), Mavelikkara. The Rent Control Court held that the tenant defaulted in rent payment for Dec 2015–Mar 2016 and that the landlord's bona fide need for the petition schedule shop (to start a hardware and electrical shop) was genuine; the Court directed payment of arrears and possession within six months. The Appellate Authority affirmed eviction under 11(2)(b) and 11(3) but set aside the specific arrears/decree amount. The revision petition before the Kerala High Court contends that the findings on bona fide need and the application of provisos to 11(3) are perverse, and seeks relief under Section 20. The High Court, examining the evidence and jurisprudence on bona fide need, ownership of alternative premises, and the scope of revisional power, dismisses the petition, holding concurrent findings well-supported by evidence. However, in light of COVID-19 and to balance interests, the Court grants eight months to the tenant to surrender possession, subject to strict conditions including affidavit of surrender and arrears deposit. The order underscores the need for genuine, honest necessity and cautions against allowing mere pretexts for ejectment.
M.F.A.(F).54/2015; M.F.A.(F).55/2015; M.F.A.(F).56/2015 Three original applications filed under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act) were instituted before the Special Tribunal, Palakkad challenging vesting of ecologically fragile lands. OA Nos. 24/2010, 25/2010 and 26/2010 were dismissed by a common order dated 30.03.2015. The present three appeals—M.F.A.(F).54/2015 (from OA 24/2010), M.F.A.(F).55/2015 (from OA 25/2010) and M.F.A.(F).56/2015 (from OA 26/2010)—are brought by Sunny Samuel, Dalya Resorts Pvt. Ltd., and Valsan, respectively, challenging that the lands in Akambadam Village, Nilambur Taluk, are ecologically fragile lands and subject to vesting. The Tribunal held the lands largely grassed with medicinal vegetation and trees sparsely, noting a steam distillation unit and cultivation after vesting, and concluded the lands satisfied the definition of forest/ecologically fragile land, warranting dismissal of the O.As. The High Court, however, overruled the Tribunal’s conclusions on exemptions under Section 2(c) and on the definition of ecological fragility, holding that cultivation evidence was not proven for exemption, and that the properties did not predominantly support natural vegetation or naturally grown trees. The appeals are allowed; the scheduled lands are declared not ecologically fragile lands, with costs to be borne by the parties. The decision cites State of Kerala v. C. Sivan and Government of Kerala v. Jacob Thomas Arikupuram and relies on State of Kerala v. Alexander for evidentiary principles.
Suvarna, the tenant, challenges Ext.P3 of the IV Addl Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, in RCA No.26/2012, arising from an eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court had granted eviction on 15-02-2012 in RCP No.28/2007. In RCA No.26/2012, the landlord filed I.A.3440/2016 under Section 12 seeking payment of admitted arrears of rent with interest and, failing payment, issuance of a show-cause and eviction. Exhibit P2 (09-01-2017) directed payment within four weeks or show cause. The Appellate Authority posted RCA 26/2012 for 07-02-2017. On that date, the tenant paid Rs.35,000 in court, but Ext.P3 disposed of I.A.3440/2016 and stopped RCA 26/2012, directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. The landlord acknowledged the payment (Ext.P4). The tenant argued that Section 12(1)-(2) imposes obligations to pay/deposit admitted arrears and that, after payment, the Appellate Authority should proceed on merits rather than terminate the appeal, citing Joy Daniel and other precedents. The High Court, invoking Article 227 and Full Bench decisions (Narayanan, Shaji M., Sankaran Pillai, Xavier), held that deposit up to the date of payment and continued payment are mandated, but a merit-based adjudication should proceed. The petition was allowed, directing deposit of admitted arrears up to 18.10.2021 and appearance on that date for RCA 26/2012 to be decided on merits within two months, with the possibility of invoking Section 12(3) for defaults.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4 (18-05-2011) of the Tahsildar rejecting assignment of 2.600 Ares (6.750 cents) of land described as river puramboke in Survey No.224/1, Ayroor, and Ext.P8 (24-05-2013) of the District Collector which affirmed the Tahsildar’s decision. The petitioner claims ownership/possession of 35 cents of land and possession over the 2.600 Ares river puramboke for over 50 years. The sequence includes earlier judgments: Ext.R3(d) WA No.954/2003 and Ext.P1 (RP No.30/2010) directing consideration of all claimants, as well as Ext.P3 sketch/report supporting possession, and Ext.P2 and Ext.P5/related proceedings. The rival 3rd respondent contends civil suits (OS/Decrees) establishing his possession and asserts that the petitioner cannot override final civil court findings; he also cites Ext.R3(c) O.P.6997/1994 and Ext.R3(d) WA 954/2003. The court ultimately holds that river puramboke land cannot be assigned (citing Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, and subsequent Kerala decisions), and that the civil judgments’ findings on possession cannot override the statutory prohibition on assignment. While upholding Ext.P8 in substance, the court directs the District Collector to take lawful steps to restore/recover the river puramboke measuring 6.750 cents (2.600 Ares) in Survey No.224/1, subject to notice and a four-month time frame, and dismisses the writ petition with that direction.
Abraham Thomas Puthooran filed Tr.P(C) No.402 of 2021 seeking transfer of OP 2364/2017 from the Ernakulam Family Court on grounds of bias by the Presiding Officer. The petitioner asserts that the Presiding Officer’s conduct on 7 July 2021 included pressurising him to pay arrears of maintenance and, when counsel opposed, making an unwarranted remark; after a sitting, an office staff inquiry suggested possible contact with the first respondent in the chambers, which the petitioner contends signals prejudice. On 12 July 2021, the court again directed physical appearances; in the virtual hearing, the Presiding Officer allegedly admitted an inquiry about the first respondent to explore settlement. The petitioner relies on Rajnesh v. Neha to stress asset disclosure in maintenance matters and submits that such conduct could affect the merits. The respondents counter that the petition is an attempt to stall maintenance payments, pointing to a five-year litigation history, ongoing trial under a special list system, and non-payment of interim maintenance. The High Court considers Section 24 CPC’s discretionary transfer power and the line of precedents (Jitendra Singh, Kulwinder Kaur, Anu Bhandari, Dr. Sini, Jain Paul Kuriakose, Vishal G. Nair, Harita Parab, Berely, Maneka Gandhi, Balakrishna Pillai, Shiju Joy A, Balachandran, Buvan Mohan Singh) and ultimately dismisses the petition with costs, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.”
This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Muhammed Shafath Khan, the sole accused in Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Wayanad Crime No. 13/2022, now pending as S.C. No. 207 of 2022 before the Special Court for NDPS Act Cases/Additional Sessions Court-II, Kalpetta, Wayand. The prosecution case is that on 19 February 2022, at 11:50 a.m., a bus was intercepted; the petitioner, found with a bag, did not respond satisfactorily, leading to a search and recovery of 115 grams of methamphetamine, constituting an offence under Section 22(c) NDPS Act. The petitioner argues for regular bail on three grounds: (i) inconsistencies in the narration about possession of the bag, (ii) inconsistencies and illogical elements in the prosecution case and, (iii) compassionate reasons—his wife is a cancer patient and their toddler is 1½ years old. The Public Prosecutor counters that the contraband quantity is commercial and, though the accused was nabbed red-handed, bail under NDPS requires satisfying the two twin conditions under Section 37, especially when the Public Prosecutor opposes. The court, after examining the case diary and seizure mahazar, found no convincing inconsistencies to dilute the Section 37 rider. It held that the accused did not satisfy the twin conditions and refused bail, dismissing the petition.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No. 2924 of 2014 challenging an award of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) No.1296/2007. Prasanth K.N. sought enhancement, alleging that the Tribunal erred by adopting a notional income of Rs.3,450 per month instead of a higher figure claimed (Rs.6,000). He relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, urging standardisation of notional income for unascertained earnings, and argued for greater awards under Pain and Suffering and Bystander’s Expenses, supported by medical records showing fractures of the right forearm and leg and prolonged bedridden state. The Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal’s calculations were sound. The High Court found substantial force in the appellant’s submissions and, applying the Ramachandrappa principle, held the notional income should be Rs.5,500 per month. It also noted the disability evidenced by Ext.C1 and Ext.A5, and partly allowed the appeal: increasing permanent disability to Rs.56,100 (with multiplier 17, notional income Rs.5,500), by making a corresponding adjustment to Loss of Earnings to Rs.22,000 and Pain and Suffering to Rs.35,000, while leaving other heads intact. Interest was fixed at 7.5% per annum with 860 days of delay excluded, and bystander’s expenses were left as awarded.
Mak Plywood Industries Pvt Ltd, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenges reassessment proceedings initiated by the 3rd and 4th respondents under Section 148 read with Section 147 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 21.10.2016. The dispute centers on the acquisition of National Wood Products, where shares were issued at a premium, indicating a potential excess over face value. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P8 under Section 148 in 2021, and the case was eventually transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre with Ext.P13 confirming reasons for reopening; a show-cause was issued, objections were filed, and a final assessment order (Ext.P21) with a penalty (Ext.P22) followed in 2022. The petitioner contends that the issue of share valuation was already considered in the original assessment and that there was full disclosure; the Department argues that disclosures were not complete and that escapement of income warrants reopening under Section 147, with the proviso to 147 (via Section 149) permitting a longer period. The High Court examines whether reopening stems from a mere change of opinion or from escapement of income and upholds the jurisdiction to reopen, dismissing the writ petition but granting liberty to file an appeal within three weeks. The bench emphasizes that the remedy of appeal under Section 246A is available on merits.
CRL.REV.PET NO.1421 OF 2006 This Kerala High Court revision petition concerns Pradeep Kumar, who was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of four litres of arrack in a ten-litre can. The trial court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with an additional year’s imprisonment on default; the appellate court upheld the conviction. In his CRL.RP, the petitioner contends multiple statutory formalities were not observed: arrest intimation to near relatives was not produced; Ext. P1 seizure mahazar lacks specimen seal or description of its seal; there was an unexplained seven-day delay before the property list Ext. P8 was produced; the seizure was first recorded at Perambra, and the material was produced before the Kunnamangalam JFMC only on 10.09.1998. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction does not preclude examining compliance with Abkari Act formalities, citing Baburaj v. State of Kerala and Sathi v. State of Kerala to reject reliance on Section 114(e) presumptions where acts are not proved properly. It also underscored mandatory arrest requirements (D.K. Basu; Ramankutty) and the need for proper sample handling and chain of custody (Vijayan, Nadarajan, Moothedath Sivadasan, Sasidharn, Vijay Pandey). Finding unresolved deficiencies and lack of link evidence, the court allowed the revision, acquitting the petitioner and canceling bail. The decision highlights strict scrutiny of evidence and procedural compliance in Abkari Act prosecutions, particularly where harsh penalties are involved.
OP(KAT) 139 of 2023 and OP(KAT) 148 of 2023 The Kerala High Court heard OP(KAT) 139 of 2023 and OP(KAT) 148 of 2023, challenging orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench) related to the termination and reinstatement of P. Abdul Salam, a daily-wage driver engaged by the Punnayur Grama Panchayat for over a decade. Abdul Salam was terminated on 15.01.2021 following a Panchayat resolution, without a disciplinary enquiry addressing misconduct or dereliction. The Tribunal had reinstated him, prompting the Panchayat and Sri P.C. Ibrahimkutty (appointed in Salam’s place) to approach the High Court. The Court emphasized that daily-wage engagement does not create a sustained employer–employee relationship under contract or the rules governing employment, and thus the protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution of India does not automatically extend to such workers. It distinguished the Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India judgment (1964 KHC 453), which held protections under Article 311 for certain temporary/probationary employees, noting that its reasoning cannot be applied to a daily-wage arrangement where no contractual term or status exists. The petitioners’ challenge is thus upheld to the extent of setting aside the Tribunal’s reinstatement order, while acknowledging potential remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act for unfair labour practices if applicable. The Court made it clear it did not endorse the Panchayat’s deliberations regarding misconduct and left avenues for lawful recourse within statutory frameworks. With liberty as above, these original petitions are allowed.
This writ petition, filed by Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd, challenges SEBI’s attempt to recover money from KHFL-linked investors by attaching and selling the mortgaged property pledged by the fourth respondent. The bank had extended a housing loan to the fourth respondent and secured it by mortgage of a residential property, with registration under CERSAI in 2012. When KHFL’s money mobilisation came under SEBI scrutiny, SEBI issued final orders and, after exploitation of enforcement mechanisms, attached the property as part of its recovery process. The bank contends that the mortgage created in February 2011 constitutes a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, conferring priority to the secured creditor over SEBI’s recovery actions, even in the face of SEBI’s proceedings under the SEBI Act, 1992. The respondents argue that SARFAESI and SEBI Acts operate in different spheres and that, despite non-obstante provisions, SEBI’s recovery measures are designed to protect investors and are not subject to secured creditor’s first charges under SARFAESI. The judge reviews interplay among the SARFAESI Act (Sections 26E, 28A, 28A(3), 35, 37), the SEBI Act, and other statutes, citing Supreme Court precedents, including Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v Girnar Corrugators (2023). Ultimately the court holds that SEBI’s recovery measures are not subordinate to 26E priority and, finding no overriding conflict, dismisses the petition and allows SEBI’s sale to proceed. The decision is rendered by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court.
