CRL.M.C Nos. 6702 & 6703/2021 This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.M.C. Nos. 6702 & 6703 of 2021) challenging two interlocutory orders of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI-III), Ernakulam in SC No. 118/2018. The two petitions arise from the ongoing trial of a high-profile case involving alleged conspiracy, abduction and sexual assault of a South Indian film actress on 17/2/2017. The prosecution sought to summon sixteen witnesses under sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. and to produce documentary material including originals of customer application forms and electronic-certificates under the Evidence Act to establish the conspiracy and the use of mobile phones. The trial court dismissed Crl.M.P. 2039/2021 and partly allowed 2040/2021, permitting recall of three previously examined witnesses (PW43, PW69, PW73) and one additional witness (CW240). The State contends that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide power to secure essential evidence for a just decision and that a liberal approach is warranted to prevent lacunae in prosecution evidence, citing Mohanlal Shamji Soni, Mannan Shaikh, Seenivasagan and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar among others. The respondents argue recall would prejudice the accused, invite tutoring, and prolong trials, relying on Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, Rajaram Prasad Yadav and related authorities. The High Court, upholding the principle that Section 311 should be invoked only to meet ends of justice, allows certain recalls and production of originals, sets ten-day timelines, and directs arrangement of a new Special Public Prosecutor to complete the process promptly, thereby balancing expeditious trial with fair procedure.
BAIL APPL. Nos. 754 of 2023; 1561 of 2023 This common order concerns bail applications Nos. 754/2023 and 1561/2023 arising from crime No. 546/2022 of Walayar Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioners, Sumesh and Manikandan (accused Nos. 8 and 9 in the crime) and Rajeev R (accused No.5), sought regular bail contending they are innocent and with minimal involvement compared to others. The prosecution alleges a coordinated criminal plan resulting in attempted robbery, assault on the defacto complainant, and theft of Rs. 10,07,000 and mobiles, aided by others, with accused 6 sheltering and aiding. The offences cited include sections 341, 364, 394, 395, 120B and 212 IPC. The petitioners argued they have no criminal antecedents, their custody duration has been substantial but investigation is ongoing; they offered to cooperate and abide by conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the alleged offences and the ongoing nature of investigation. The court noted previously the 6th accused was granted bail in B.A.645/2023 due to limited involvement; while the offences are serious, there is no proven antecedent against the petitioners and the investigation is nearing completion. Accordingly, the court allowed the applications, imposing standard bail conditions: bond, two sureties, restrictions on witness tampering, cooperation, regular appearances before the IO, and prohibition on new offences. The judge signed the order.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 14313 of 2023) challenges Exts. P5 and P6, two show-cause proceedings suspending petitioners’ licenses (Exts. P1 and P2). The petitioners, heavy vehicle drivers, claim respondents lacked jurisdiction to suspend licenses under Section 19(1)(d)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, and argue there is no record of overload violation; they contend the licensing authorities cannot suspend for alleged violations without following due process. Respondents maintain that Section 19 empowers revocation after hearing if a licensee causes nuisance or danger to the public, and Rule 21(8) of the CMV Rules 1989 defines nuisance to include overload. They assert the weighment certificates and e-challan support the alleged violations and that proceedings under Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) are proper, citing Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala to justify action. The court observes the materials, including the e-challan and weighment certificates, and finds no illegality or arbitrariness in Exts. P5 and P6; however, noting due process, it directs the first respondent to finalize the proceedings after hearing the petitioners. It explicitly states it has not adjudicated the merits of Exts. P5 and P6. The court refuses to quash the proceedings and preserves petitioners’ licenses pending finalisation, pending a hearing, and stays revocation until then. The judgment emphasizes that Article 226 relief is not warranted on the record before it but leaves room for due-process considerations in the ongoing proceedings.
WP(C).980 OF 2011(V); WP(C).9617 OF 2010(V) Jayasree G., Secretary of Kavalloor Harijan Service Co‑operative Society Ltd., challenged the Kerala Public Service Commission’s decision on verification for the post of clerk/cashier in the Thiruvananthapuram District Co‑operative Bank under category 21/06 reserved for employees of primary cooperative societies. The petition, heard with WP(C).9617/2010, pressed Rule 187 of the Kerala Co‑operative Societies Rules, which provides a 50% reservation for employees of affiliated societies. With the managing committee having expired in 2001 and administrator tenure ending in 2004, the petitioner sought a valid employment certificate from the administrator or registrar for verification. PSC directed verification on 13.04.2010, but Ext.P4 (23.04.2010) and Ext.P5 (28.07.2010) certificates were not accepted since the petitioner was not in service at the time of application. The society did issue Ext.P9 certifying service from 07.08.1996. The court held that the certificate of employment is a sine qua non for verification and cannot be condoned on administrative gaps. Citing Vimala Kumari v. State (1994) 2 KLT 47, the court noted that expiry of the rank list precludes further directions. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, underscoring the rigidity of rank-list expiry and the necessity of timely employment verification.
Vinod, the injured appellant, challenged an award of Rs 4,00,000 from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kasaragod in OP(MV) No.469/2009, part of MACA No. 2750/2015. The accident occurred on 21 October 2008, while the appellant, a fisherman, sustained injuries in a collision with the offending vehicle. He claimed Rs 8,42,000 (limited to Rs 7,00,000) as compensation but the Tribunal granted Rs 4,00,000 under various heads. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in applying a notional income of Rs 4,000 rather than Rs 5,000 and failed to apply 72% disability, future prospects, and proper global assessment. He relied on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236 that for unascertained income the notional figure would be higher. The insurer contended the award did not require modification and that the permanent disability was only to the right lower limb. The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal in part, revising the notional income to Rs 5,000 per month, fixing 50% whole body disability, and allowing 10% future prospects, resulting in a total revised compensation of Rs 4,29,000 for permanent disability, with enhanced sums for Bystander Expenses, Extra Nourishment, and Pain and Suffering, while keeping other heads intact. The judgment directs the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest, etc.
This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (Act 8 of 1923) by the Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, challenging an order of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Palakkad, in ECC 37/2014 (old W.C.C. 94 of 2010). The respondents, legal heirs of Kunhu Mohammed, claim compensation for his death on 26.07.2010, alleged to be caused by stress and strain of work as a loader/unloader. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 5,13,320 along with 12% interest and Rs. 5,000 funeral expenses. The appellant contends there is no causal link between death by cardiac arrest and employment; evidence does not prove the death arose out of employment. The respondents contend that the deceased experienced uneasiness during lunch, sought leave which was denied, and was forced to continue work until evening, which aggravated his health, establishing a direct causal connection to employment. The court examines evidence (notably AW2’s testimony), and relies on several precedents to insist that there must be a causal connection between employment and death for employer liability under Section 3. It cites Jyothi Ademma, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti, Param Pal Singh, Leela, and District Manager, FCI v. Fathima to frame the applicable doctrine. Ultimately, the court holds that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, and dismisses the appeal, upholding the Commissioner’s order.
This is a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by five petitioners – Vipin K. @ Vipin Ballath, Aneesh K, Bineesh C, Sabin K and Babu T – in connection with Crime No. 388 of 2023 registered at Hosdurg Police Station. The prosecution alleges that on 19.03.2023 at around 4:10 pm, the petitioners and about 20 other identifiable persons attempted to attack voters at the Kanhangad Co-operative Urban Society Board election venue at GHSS Hosdurg after asserting that the election time was over, and that police who intervened were assaulted with stones, wooden sticks and chairs. The petitioners contend they are not involved in the case, are willing to comply with conditions, and that there was no injury to police officer to attract Section 332 IPC. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, submitting that the petitioners obstructed official duty and committed offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. The High Court observed that although the allegations are serious, custodial interrogation was not necessary and directed the petitioners to surrender and appear before the investigating officer (IO) on Mondays until final report. The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and granted bail with conditions: appearance before the IO within ten days; bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; regular appearances; no travel outside jurisdiction; avoid further offences; bail cancellable on breach.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of five litres of illicit arrack. The petitioner, Kochuraman, was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoor, and confirmed by the Additional Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta, with three months’ imprisonment and a Rs. 15,000 fine, defaulting to a month more. The argument before the High Court focused on serious procedural and evidentiary defects: absence of arrest memo and arrest intimation to relatives; independent witnesses PW4 and PW5 reportedly did not support the case; Ext. P2 mahazar allegedly lacked a specimen seal and no property list was used; no forwarding note was produced; the defense alleged that the court itself took samples, a process deemed irregular. The Court acknowledged revisional jurisdiction is limited, but not to ignore statutory formalities under the Abkari Act. Relying on precedents such as D.K. Basu on mandatory arrest memos and Baburaj v. State of Kerala emphasizing strict compliance with statutory formalities, the court found a fatal lack of proof regarding arrest, custody and chain-of-custody of the sample, and the link between the contraband and the accused. Accordingly, the revision petition was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the petitioner acquitted; bail bonds were cancelled and he was set at liberty.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act in SC No.263 of 2004, as upheld by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and modified by the Fast-Track Court on appeal. The petition concerns Crime No.70 of 2002 at Vithura Police Station for possession of illicit liquor—two five-litre cans containing illicit arrack—seized from the pathway to River View estate. The trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 58 and sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh each, with a default sentence. The appellate court upheld the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to one year, retaining the fine and default terms. In their revision petition, the petitioners argue that Ext.P4 forwarding note lacks the specimen seal and countersignature, and that the space for the name of the person who took the sample is blank; the forwarding note is not sealed and the specimen impression is not proved. They rely on Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala (on forwarding note and tamper-proof despatch) and on Moothedath Sivadasan, Krishnan H, and Rangan v. State of Kerala to urge strict compliance with evidentiary requirements. The High Court agrees that the chain of evidence is not proved and allows the revision, acquitting the petitioners under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and cancelling their bail bonds.
Shiju, the fourth accused in Crime No. 981/2022 of Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam, petitions for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that at about 2:30 AM on 30.11.2022, the accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant after he visited his lover, assaulted him by beating on the left cheek, neck and back, and snatched a gold chain of 1¼ sovereigns with a Lord Lakshmi Devi pendant, while threatening dire consequences. The offences alleged are 341 (wrongful restraint), 294(b) (obscene acts), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 395 (dacoity) of the IPC. The petitioner’s counsel argues innocence and suggests the presence at the scene occurred during a scuffle while questioning alleged illicit activity; contends the prosecution’s allegations are false. The petitioner has been in custody since 02.02.2023. The Public Prosecutor emphasizes the seriousness of the offences and the need for ongoing investigation, noting the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and involvement in two other cases (Cr. 530/22 and Cr. 575/2019). After considering the materials, the court grants bail with stringent conditions, including bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, witness protection, ongoing cooperation with investigation, restricted travel, regular court appearances, and a bar on committing or involving in further offences during the bail period. The petition is therefore allowed.
WP(C) Nos. 13543 of 2022 and 13443 of 2023 Two writ petitions filed by Girish C., a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) posted at BPCL, Cochin, challenge transfer orders directing his relocation to CISF ASG, Delhi, and seek deferral or retention in Kerala. The petitions, WP(C) Nos. 13543 of 2022 and 13443 of 2023, were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner argued that his family conditions — his mother’s cancer treatment and his wife’s government job — warrant deferment or exemption from transfer, supported by Ext. P4 (DoPT memorandum) and Ext. P2 (service certificate of the wife). He sought retention at BPCL Cochin or placement at ASG Cochin or other Kerala airports, and asked for quashing Ext. P3 transfer order and Ext. P7 relieving order, with permission to continue in the present unit for one year (Ext. P5 representation considered). The respondents maintained that CISF personnel are subject to transfer under the CISF Act, 1968 (Section 15), and that transfers are routine and essential to force management. They relied on Circular No. 22/2017 (Ext. P6) to justify home-state/sector distribution and tenure norms, and argued that the one-year deferral had already been granted and that the Clause 26 extension is limited. The Court held transfers are in public interest, emphasized limited judicial intervention in disciplined forces, and dismissed the petitions, directing the parties to comply with Ext. P7 within 15 days.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offences in a case investigated by the CBI. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in SC No.308/2007 for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 203 IPC, based on circumstantial evidence and a motive alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances including suspicious conduct by the accused, false accusations against PW60 and PW26, the recovery of MO.2 knife near the scene, and the presentation of MO.1 shirt as the shirt worn by the deceased. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the 302 IPC offence, with additional terms for the other offences, all to run concurrently, and allowed a set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The defence argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; motive was weak and circumstantial links were not tightly connected; several inconsistencies and investigation lapses existed, and reliance on the later CBI report did not cure gaps. The High Court applies the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda) to test the chain of evidence, scrutinizes the credibility of medical and eyewitness material, and finds that the chain is not complete and is susceptible to alternate explanations. The appeal is allowed; conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted.
MACA Nos. 2067 & 2083 of 2017 These MACA nos. 2067 and 2083 of 2017 arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur's award in OP(MV) 2730 of 2012 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 07.10.2012, which left the claimant’s left leg amputated below the knee. The insurer (MACA 2067) challenges the quantum; the claimant (MACA 2083) challenges the compensation as inadequate. The tribunal had fixed a notional income of Rs.5,000 and an apparently high disability figure, while the parties contest income, disability and future treatment. Relying on Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2011 SC 2951), the court revisits the income and disability calculations, and reappraises the loss of earnings, affect on future prospects, and the heads of damage. The High Court determines the notional income at Rs.9,000 per month, fixes the functional disability at 60% (considering the 37-year age and future job prospects), and applies a multiplier of 15. It reduces and re-scales sums for pain and suffering, loss of earning, and bystander expenses, and adjusts future treatment costs. The appeals are allowed in part with a revised quantum of compensation, and directions are issued for deposit of the enhanced amount with interest, subject to specific exclusions for future treatment. The overall outcome reflects a careful rebalancing of compensation heads in light of evidence and statutory principles.
This is a criminal revision petition (CRL.R.P. No. 327 of 2016) filed by Anil Kumar challenging his conviction under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, upheld by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The prosecution case, pleaded on 26 May 2007 at 3:30 pm, involved the accused being found with ten litres of arrack in a ten-litre can on a public road. A sample was taken, sealed, and sent for chemical analysis; he was convicted to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence of three months. In revision, the petitioner argued that there was no specimen impression of the seal in the seizure mahazar and that the genuineness of the sample was doubtful because the seal’s nature and its tamper-proof status were not established; thus the link between the seized liquor and the sample analysed was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court (Sophy Thomas, J.) relied on recent precedents emphasizing chain-of-custody and seal documentation (Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan v. State of Kerala; Rangan V. State of Kerala) and Kumaran Narayanan and Others v. State of Kerala, to reiterate the necessity of a specimen seal and its proper documentation. Ultimately, the court found the link evidence lacking and acquitted the petitioner, setting aside the conviction and sentence and ordering acquittal under Cr.P.C. 235(1).
Ananthhu V.S., an accused in Crime No.243/2025 of Vakathanam Police Station, moves the High Court of Kerala for bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023. The crimes charged include offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: sections 189(1), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 296(b), 351(2), 126(2), 132, 121(1) and 118(1). The prosecution alleges that, on 31-03-2025 at 9.30 p.m., ten accused formed an unlawful assembly during a temple festival and attacked police personnel, disobeyed commands, used abusive language, and assaulted a defacto complainant and police personnel, including an attack on a constable and beating a sub-inspector. The petitioner contends the incident occurred in a temple festival context, he is ready to cooperate with the investigation, has no criminal antecedents, and can comply with conditions. The Public Prosecutor acknowledges no antecedents per the IO report but opposes outright bail. The Court recalls bail is the rule and arrest is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and similarly relies on Siddharth v. State of UP, Manish Sisodia, Anzar Azeez, and Sushila Aggarwal to justify bail with conditions. It ultimately grants bail, subject to conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks and thereafter as required; Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties; no leave from India; no commission of similar offences; and potential cancellation if conditions are violated. The decision reflects balancing personal liberty with public order and investigation needs under BNSS/BNS regimes.
DBP No.16 of 2023 is a suo motu petition initiated by this Court in response to a Malayala Manorama news report dated 19 February 2023 alleging deterioration of Arattukulam Kulippura at Karthiyayini Devi Temple, Aroor, a shrine under the Travancore Devaswom Board. The matter was placed for consideration on 21 February 2023, and an inspection of the Kulippura was directed. The 6th respondent conducted an inspection of the Kulippura on 24 February 2023, reporting severe damage to the roof structures of the Chuttambalam and Kulappuramalika, with anti-social activities, trespass by schoolchildren, and lack of effective police action. The affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent stated that the Temple Advisory Committee would undertake repairs, based on revised estimates: Rs 3,44,000 under DSR 2016, later revised to Rs 7,92,000 under DSR 2018 including GST. The Board sanctioned the work through the Temple Advisory Committee and directed the Devaswom Commissioner to issue sealed coupons to devotees for funding; a formal agreement with the Executive Engineer, Kottayam, was executed on 27 February 2023. The Court recited the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, especially Sections 15A, 31 and 31A, clarifying the Board’s trustee role and the functioning of the Temple Advisory Committee in temple administration. It also discussed the Ombudsman framework, including Clause 9A, added to safeguard public interest and address administrative matters not amounting to personal grievances.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (CRL.MC No. 1581 of 2023) from the Kerala High Court concerning defamation proceedings under Section 500 IPC. The petitioners, octogenarians—the 1st petitioner a printer/publisher and the 2nd petitioner the managing editor of a daily—sought exemption from personal appearance in a summons-triable, bailable offence, arguing severe age-related health constraints and a travel distance of over 300 km from Kozhikode to Kollam. They produced medical certificates describing metastatic cancer and cervical spondylosis, and proposed to appear online or through counsel consistent with the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021. The Judicial Magistrate II, Kollam, had refused the request, relying on existing principles including Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. Joshy Varghese. The High Court surveys multiple authorities (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd; Mathew v. State of Kerala; Sarath v. State of Kerala; Chandmal v. State of M.P) to endorse flexible appearance via video-conferencing where justice demands it, especially in summons cases involving minor offences. The Court ultimately allows the petitioners to appear through counsel, directs filing under Section 205 CrPC, grants bail on deposit of ₹25,000 each (no strict sureties), and quashes the earlier Annexure-2. Annexure materials include medical certificates and videoconferencing orders.
This intra-court writ appeal arises from a 2013 writ petition (WP(C) No.21585 of 2013) challenging a 2015 Single Judge order directing the State to reimburse tuition fees to SC/ST students of Malabar Hotel Management and Catering Promotion Trust, a private self-financing institution in Kalpetta, Wayanad. The appellants (State of Kerala and the Development Officer) argued that educational concessions are restricted by Government orders and notifications—most notably GO(MS) No.3/2007/SCSTDD (11.01.2007) and GO(P) No.50/2009/SCSTDD (02.07.2009)—to institutions that are recognised or controlled by Government or Universities, and that private unaided/self-financing colleges admitted under management quotas fall outside these concessions. They contended that Oriental School of Hotel Management and Oriental College of Hotel Management and Culinary Arts were private entities that failed to obtain timely approval; hence, they were ineligible. The writ petition sought equal treatment for SC/ST students in such private institutions, arguing discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench ultimately held that the State’s distinction between SC/ST students admitted in government/private institutions and those in self-financing private institutions is unconstitutional discrimination, directing reimbursement with parity to SC/ST students admitted through centralized mechanisms (LBS Centre, etc.). The court also mandated that the private institution’s reimbursements not exceed government-class fee levels, to be completed within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
The petitioner, Raji Joseph, was appointed as a U.P.S.A in the M.H.M.A.U.P School at Cheekode in 1995 against an anticipated vacancy that was never regularised. For the period 1995–2005, she served against a leave vacancy, with the service acknowledged in records. In 2005–2006, the junior Remani, then posted to the regular vacancy, was shifted to the leave vacancy, triggering retrenchment and the petitioner’s subsequent retrenchment. She claimed protection under Government orders and argued that long service in a leave vacancy warranted regularisation and associated benefits. The matter traversed several rounds of litigation; in 2013, this Court, in W.P(C) 12192/2012 (Ext.P.13), held that she was not entitled to protection, a conclusion the present court treats as final. Nonetheless, the petitioner sought inclusion in the Teachers Bank and other benefits, while challenging Ext.P14 denial. The court notes precedents such as D.E.O., Kannur v. A.V. Sathyabhama and others (2016) and the rulings in Alizuamma and State of Kerala v. Sabu Mathew, which discuss protection eligibility and pension qualification without discounting long service. The judge ultimately dispose of the petition by directing the Government to consider including the petitioner in the Teachers Bank and to decide, in light of Sabu Mathew and Alizuamma, whether the period 12-09-1995 to 15-07-2005 can count as qualifying service for pension, with orders to be issued within eight weeks from certified copy and allowing the petitioner to work without salary pending decision on the Bank.
The South Indian Bank Limited, a banking company, extended credit facilities to M/s Parvathi Paper Industries and took an equitable mortgage on 36.95 cents of land and a residential building in Sy. No. 433/2, Thirumukulam village, created by deposit of title deed on 30.04.2014. When the borrower defaulted, the Bank invoked SARFAESI proceedings and the secured asset was sold at auction (Ext. P5) in favour of the 4th respondent, with sale confirmation (Ext. P6). Since the sale proceeds did not cover the debt, the Bank instituted OA No. 383/2021 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 3rd respondent obtained an attachment from the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, on 26.09.2016 in OS No. 154/2016 in respect of the same property. The Bank contends that the attachment post-dates the mortgage and cannot affect the Bank’s right to convey title on sale; it seeks that the 1st respondent register the sale after effacing the attachment as noted in Ext. P7. Relying on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others and Keechery Service Co-operative Bank v. Sajitha Nizar, the Petitioner argues that an attachment created after the mortgage does not impair sale or title and should be removed from revenue records to preserve marketability. Though respondents 1 and 2 were represented by a Government Pleader, respondents 3 and 4 did not appear. The Court ultimately endorses the Madhan line of authority, holds that post-mortgage attachments do not affect the sale under SARFAESI, and directs effacement of the attachment within three weeks, disposing of the petition.
