Ambika C.R., Akshay Kiran (a minor through his mother) and Sarojini P.D., appellants, challenge the 2011 MACT Thalassery award in O.P.(M.V) No.825 of 2005 arising from a motor vehicle accident on 17.04.2005 near Keecheri, Kannur-Karuvanchal Road. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver of car KL 14C/4148 liable for the accident that killed Kiran and awarded compensation of 14,80,000 to the petitioners. The appellants contend the award is meagre and based on disputed facts regarding the deceased’s age, occupation, and monthly income; they assert the monthly income as 10,770 and argue the Tribunal erred in deducting 30% tax from the earnings. They also challenge the tribunal’s modest awards under heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection, and loss of consortium. The respondents deny negligence or contest liability, with the insurer admitting coverage. The appellants rely on Ext.A8 showing the deceased as a Sub-Inspector earning 10,770/month and challenge the income-based calculation. The High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi principles, re-allocates funeral expenses and loss of estate to 16,500 per survivor, awards 44,000 for loss of consortium to each survivor, and computes an enhanced sum as additional compensation, adjusting for prior heads. The appeal is allowed, directing payment of enhanced compensation with interest, under the insurer’s liability, within two months of certification of the judgment.
This intra-court appeal (WA No.1407 of 2019) arises from a writ petition filed by D. Sreekumar challenging a 3 April 2019 Single Judge order in W.P.(C) No.42482/2018. The writ petitioner, a retired Devaswom Board official, faced a Vigilance case registered in 2002 and final cognizance in 2011, leading to criminal proceedings (C.C. No.11/2011) in which he was convicted under Sec.15 read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and acquitted of other offences. Following retirement on 30 June 2015, the Travancore Devaswom Board issued pension and DCRG (Death Cum Retirement Gratuity) orders, but later directed provisional pension under Rule 3A Part III KSR and withheld full pension and DCRG on the ground of pending judicial and alleged grave misconduct proceedings. The Single Judge directed immediate release of the DCRG within three months and held that Rule 3 Part III KSR Note 1 excludes DCRG from pension withholding, while noting that Rule 3A’s second limb enabling withholding of DCRG could be ultravires. The Division Bench, however, treats Chandran v. LSG Department (Full Bench) as binding, but ultimately allows the appeal, directing immediate release of full DCRG within six weeks and, if unpaid, interest at 7% per annum from the expiry of that period. It also directs a show-cause process to determine if grave misconduct warrants any action, with two months to issue final orders, and leaves room for final outcome of the criminal appeal.
Thiruvananthapuram North Co-operative Society Ltd. (Petitioner) seeks recovery of a loan default amount from the pensionary benefits including DCRG of sureties who executed consent deeds (Exts. P9 and P10) to permit salary and retirement-benefit recovery. The loan was extended to the third respondent, with sureties (Respondents 4–6) providing non-liability certificates and consent to deductions from salary and retirement benefits. Notices were issued demanding arrears; further steps under Section 37(1)(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act were contemplated if payment did not occur, and recovery requests were sent to the District Treasury. Respondents counter that a writ petition cannot enforce contractual liability, and assert statutory remedies under the Act or civil suit, while contending DCRG/pension cannot be attached. The 1st respondent relies on Radhey Shyam Gupta to argue retirement benefits cannot be attached, and countersignatures are not binding where pension-sanctioning authority is the Director of Employment. The Court references Chandran K. (Full Bench, 2020) and the Supreme Court decision (2022) to discuss the evolving law on DCRG recoveries, noting this is not a purely legal issue and should be examined on evidence. The Court disposes of the petition, relegating the issue to statutory remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act, while maintaining an interim order withholding part of retirement benefits and directing an application within one month, with limitation period to be excluded during the petition, and six months’ continued interim safeguard.
This Regular Second Appeal before the Kerala High Court arises from a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their officers from trespassing on the plaint schedule property, demolishing structures, or disturbing possession. The plaint schedule comprises 15 cents (630 sq m) of land in Re.Sy.No.23/2/60 in Panniyanakara Village, with a public lane on the eastern side (in Re.Sy.No.61). The plaintiff asserts ownership of the plaint schedule property and that a boundary wall along the eastern boundary remains, while the defendants contend the plaintiff encroached upon the adjacent lane and that the wall blocks Re.Sy.No.61. The Corporation claims it has the right to remove encroachments and argues the suit is not maintainable under Section 563 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, as civil courts are barred from adjudicating matters under Chapters XVII- XIX. The trial court dismissed, holding the suit barred by Section 563 and Section 544 for lack of notice. The First Appellate Court held Section 544 notice unnecessary for an injunction, but agreed the civil court had no jurisdiction under Section 563. The High Court, after hearing, framed five substantial questions, concluded that an adequate and efficacious remedy exists under the Municipality Act, and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal. The decision emphasizes the special Act’s exclusive remedy and the doctrine limiting civil court jurisdiction.
This High Court of Kerala case arises from a private complaint leading to CC 404/2012, registered under sections 498A and 34 IPC, and a criminal miscellaneous application (CRL.MC 3444/2021) filed by the petitioners who are the accused in that prosecution. The governing dispute centered on matrimonial civil elements interwoven with a criminal case—husband Paul Mathew, and his in-laws, against the de facto complainant Susan Paul. The parties had already engaged in separate matrimonial proceedings, including maintenance and custody suits, and according to the record, a full and final settlement of Rs 10 lakh was paid by the first petitioner to the second respondent. The second respondent filed an affidavit stating she did not wish to proceed and had no objection to quashing the ongoing proceedings. The State Public Prosecutor supported the quashing, recognizing the compromise, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh v State of Punjab, which permits quashing of criminal cases with civil or matrimonial flavour upon settlement, while noting that serious offences cannot be quashed. The court concluded that the disputes were settled and the continuation would be oppressive; therefore, it exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, held that the ends of justice require quashing, and quashed Annexure III in CC 404/2012, allowing the CRL.MC.
Two anticipatory bail applications (BA 75/2023 and BA 91/2023) were heard together by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The accused, who was abroad at the time of registration of the crimes, faced two sets of allegations: (i) Crime No. 896/2022 (re-registered as No. 2/2023) under IPC 376(2)(n) and related acts involving alleged oral intercourse with a first cousin during 2019–2020; and (ii) Crime No. 895/2022 under IPC 354A(1)(i) and sections 7, 8, 9(1), 9(n), 10 of the POCSO Act for acts alleged between 2012 and 2013 against a minor victim. The petitions questioned maintainability since the petitioner was abroad when filing, a matter previously addressed in Shafi S.M. v. State of Kerala (and contrasted with Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala), with reference to pending reference orders in 4421/2022 and 4983/2022. The court noted urgency due to forthcoming marriage (March 2023) and concluded, after detailed scrutiny of facts: (a) custodial interrogation was not necessary; (b) the accused should be granted anticipatory bail with conditions; (c) upon arrival in India, the accused must appear before the investigating officer and comply with conditions; (d) final order modified the non-penetrative travel restriction to require permission from both jurisdictional courts. The interim bail already granted was made absolute, with passport handling and transfer to the Special POCSO Court where applicable, and disposal of the applications.
WP(C) Nos.11873 of 2021; 11909 of 2021 These writ petitions concern landowners who sought correction or addition in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) following a statutory permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to convert paddy land for non-paddy use (garden land). The Tahsildar rejected the request, directing the petitioners to invoke the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court relied on precedents including W.P.(C) No. 25101/2020 (Ext.P4) and the decision in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer to hold that where statutory permission for change of user has been obtained, the competent authority must re-assess land for higher tax and issue orders to reflect the change in the BTR. However, it also notes that the land’s nature cannot be corrected in the BTR; at most, a条件ary endorsement may be made. Citing LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, Shanmugham v. District Collector and Iype Varghese v. RDO, the Court concludes Ext.P3 cannot stand. The Tahsildar v. Renjith George reference is considered not fully applicable since the extensions pre-date the 2017 amendment. Consequently, the petitions are allowed: Ext.P3 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 applications and pass fresh orders within a month, consistent with the cited authorities.
RSA Nos. 1002 of 2014 and 1004 of 2014 Two Regular Second Appeals arise from a common judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor, and from the Munsiff’s Court, Kolencherry, involving disputes over title, boundary and possession of plaint schedule properties in Thiruvaniyoor Village. Appellant SABU, owner of about 10 cents of Survey No.379/9, built a house on the schedule property; respondents SASI and Sudhamol claim title to Survey No.379/3 and contend SABU encroached upon a portion labelled ‘C’. O.S.9/2008 sought damages for destruction of a boundary wall by respondents; O.S.32/2009 sought declaration of title, possession of the encroached portion, and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed SABU’s damages suit and decreed the respondents’ suit, declaring their title to ‘C’ and issuing a permanent injunction against SABU with respect to the ‘D’ schedule pathway. The First Appellate Court affirmed. The High Court focused on whether Ext.C3(a) plan sufficiently identifies the disputed properties, noting the plan’s omissions (G-line, Ladder, etc.). Relying on P. Chandrasekharan v. S. Kanakarajan, the Court held that property must be adequately identifiable to grant a decree. Consequently, the Appeals were partly allowed: Decrees relating to A, B, C in O.S.32/2009 and A in O.S.9/2008 are set aside; the injunction regarding D schedule is upheld; the suits are remitted for fresh adjudication excluding D, with directions and costs."
ITA Nos. 2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 7/2019, 8/2019 This batch of Income Tax appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns the validity of assessments under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, triggered by a search under section 132 of the Act conducted at the premises of E. Shamsudeen, the father of the assessee, Mohammed Sherief. The assessees challenge the notice and the validity of the block assessments for AY 2003-04 to 2007-08, arguing that the prerequisite ‘satisfaction’ by the search-initiating officer that the seized documents belong to a person other than the searched person has not been properly recorded, and that the materials relied upon either belong to the searched person or do not establish a valid nexus to the assessee. The Court examines statutory prerequisites, including section 132(4A) presumptions and the requirement of separate satisfaction when materials are seized from a premises of a different person. It discusses the interplay between sections 132, 153C, and 153A, and canvasses leading precedents (Pepsi Foods, Nikki Drugs, S.N. Software, Calcutta Knitwears, Kabul Chawla, Singhad Tech, etc.) to determine whether the Tribunal’s findings are legally sustainable. The judgment ultimately holds that proper satisfaction under 153C must be recorded and that the Tribunal’s conclusions require reconsideration. The Appeals are allowed and remanded to the IT Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of binding precedents.
O.P.(FC) No.15, 18 & 19 of 2023 and Mat.Appeal Nos.28 & 30 of 2023 This is a matrimonial custody matter decided by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, Aysha C.M., mother of a girl child aged about 6½ years, challenged a common order of the Family Court, Thrissur (dated 28.12.2022) and related interlocutory proceedings in O.P.(FC) Nos. 15, 18 and 19 of 2023, along with connected Mat.Appeal Nos. 28 and 30 of 2023, filed by the respondent/father Ali Abdul Latheef. The Family Court had granted the father daily WhatsApp/video-call interaction with the child and intermittent interim custody on certain Saturdays and during vacations, and it had issued an injunction preventing the mother from removing the child from the court’s jurisdiction. The mother, currently residing with the child in Doha, Qatar, contended that compliance with the order to produce the child in India or to abide strictly by the injunction would cause severe hardship given employment and schooling arrangements, and sought stay of operation of certain orders. The court relied on welfare principles, citing Rosy Jacob and other well-known precedents, to emphasize that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and that visitation rights should be preserved to maintain a relationship with both parents. Ultimately, the High Court vacated the injunction (I.A.3/2021) from today, modified other interim arrangements, granted two months’ stay on prosecutions, and directed that the father may interact with the child daily and be granted interim custody during the first 15 days of the child’s school holidays in Qatar, disposing of the petitions in the terms set out.
OT.Rev Nos.84/2018; 75/2018; 78/2018; 77/2018; 79/2018; 80/2018; 82/2018; 81/2018; 86/2018; 91/2018; 92/2018; 94/2018 (Order consolidated) This is a consolidated Kerala High Court judgment disposing of multiple OT.Revisions challenging a common order of the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal dated 5.3.2018 in T.A.(VAT) No.564 of 2014 and related cross-objections. The batch of revisions revolve around reassessment powers under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and their interplay with compounding of tax under Section 8. The proceedings trace divergent prior authorities, including Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. and Joy Alukkas Traders (I) Pvt. Ltd., and a notable difference of opinion among C.C.Sebastian v State of Kerala and State of Kerala v Muhammed Ali A.M. (2017) 25 KTR 73. A Full Bench, by order dated 31.03.2022, held that reassessment under Section 25 is available for cases such as escaped or under-assessed turnover and incorrect tax rates, and that compounding does not immunize a dealer from reassessment when misrepresentation or fraud is involved. It rejected the narrow interpretation of Section 25 and upheld the independence of Sections 25, 56, and 66. Consequently, the HC set aside the Tribunal’s common order, allowed the OT revisions, and remitted the matters to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits within four months.
Sr. Lucy Kalappura, a nun of the Franciscan Clarist Congregation (FCC), filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection for her life and property inside the Karakkamala FCC convent in Wayanad. She alleged sustained harassment, threats, and attempts to drive her out after supporting contemporaries opposing Bishop Franco Mulakkal; she claimed that superiors and others obstructed her rights, installed CCTV, and sought to preserve footage from May 2020 onward. She also challenged ongoing civil litigation (OS 209/2019) before the Munsiff Court, Mananthawady, alleging eviction and suppression of dissent. The petition sought to restrain respondents 5–8 from interfering with living inside the convent, and a direction to preserve CCTV visuals around the Vicar’s residence. The 5th respondent denied the allegations, detailing Lucy’s long tenure in FCC, disciplinary actions, and eventual dismissal; 6th–8th respondents supported the denial and contended that Lucy cannot reside in the convent post-dismissal, and that Canon Law governs appeals. The Government Pleader argued that police protection in civil rights matters should not substitute civil remedies and that investigation is the domain of the police. The Court recognised Lucy’s fear but held that Article 226 cannot grant police protection where civil disputes are pending; it directed the Munsiff to expeditiously decide the interlocutory application in OS 209/2019. The petition was disposed of without costs, with directions that parties approach the Civil Court for resolution and with police protection only upon proper complaint to the relevant authorities.
WP(C) No. 16800 of 2020; WP(C) No. 16697 of 2020 These twin writ petitions challenge orders issued by the first respondent RDO under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland regime, concerning change of user of land for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioners argue that the subject land was nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register but had long ago been converted to garden land, with coconut trees over 25 years old, and is listed in the Data Bank as “claimed/converted land 10 years prior to 2008.” They submitted applications for change of land use in early 2018, asserting that the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) should govern their cases, since the amendments enacted as of 2017–2018 were either not yet applicable or retroactively inapplicable to their situation. The petitions emphasize that the Amendment Act, 2018 (retrospectively from 30.12.2017) and Sec.27A, should regulate post-30.12.2017 filings, with fees to be computed per the Act and its Rules, not the higher 50% fee of Sec.16. The respondents contend the amendments apply and that the higher fee is proper. The High Court traces legislative history and prior rulings (including Thomas v State of Kerala) to conclude that applications filed after 30.12.2017 fall under the Amendment Act, with fee based on the subject property’s fair value as on the date of application. The court quashes the fee portion of the orders and remands for reconsideration of fee, directing the RDO to determine it according to the subject property’s fair value on the date of application and to provide hearing, within two months. The petitions are disposed of with these directions.
This is a criminal writ petition (WP(Crl). No.1038 of 2022) challenging the preventive detention of the detenu Ajmal under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA). The petitioner, brother of the detenu, seeks Habeas Corpus, and certiorari to quash Ext.P3 detention order dated 18.06.2022 and Ext.P5 confirming it (dated 30.08.2022). The Court notes that the detaining authority passed Ext.P3 after initial and subsequent sponsoring reports (05.04.2022 and 16.05.2022) and that the detention was executed on 02.07.2022 and approved by the State Government on 14.07.2022, followed by an Advisory Board report on 26.08.2022. The petitioner challenges three grounds: (A) there is an inordinate delay between the last prejudicial activity (04.06.2022/05.04.2022) and Ext.P3, snapping the live link; (B) the bail considerations in the last crime (6th) were not adequately considered, undermining subjective satisfaction; and (C) the detenu, already in judicial custody since 15.04.2022 in the 7th crime, questions the need for preventive detention. The respondents contend that the delay is explained, bail history demonstrates continued predatory conduct, and the detaining authority properly considered all materials. The Court, applying established jurisprudence on the “live link,” delay, and the standard of “subjective satisfaction,” upholds the detention and dismisses the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, and the detention order sustained.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P6, an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) at Thiruvananthapuram under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioners, respondents in PLA OP No.510/2007, alleged that the PLA invalidly decided the dispute on merits without proper conciliation, and that the award was vitiated by failure to observe the statutory conciliation process and lack of evidence of public utility deficiency. Ext.P6 records that conciliation was arranged; initial willingness to settle was followed by withdrawal from participation. The petition contends that no lawful attempt at conciliation culminated in a merit-based award, and that the decision appears to have been made despite violations of Section 22C. The respondents’ counsel argued that if one party refuses to participate, the PLA may proceed under Section 22C(8); they highlighted the long lapse since 2007 and urged deference to the PLA’s award. The learned Judge held that Section 22C requires a four-stage process (22C(4)–(7)) before a merit-based decision under 22C(8) and that Ext.P6 violates these provisions; therefore Ext.P6 is set aside and the matter remanded to the PLA for reconsideration in accordance with law, with strict adherence to Section 22C and a timely determination (within three months). The court reiterates the primacy of settlement via Lok Adalat and the need to avoid merits-based adjudication absent settlement.
This writ petition concerns the appointment of the petitioner, Maidhily.M, as Headmistress of the High School, Mundur. The petitioner, a long-serving teacher, contends that she was promoted to headship in 2018 and seeks formal approval and consequent service benefits under Rule 44A of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) 1959. The respondents oppose, arguing that while the petitioner was promoted to Headmistress in 2018, she did not possess the test qualifications mandated by the rule’s third proviso; there were other teachers with the required test qualifications who were senior or who had not relinquished their rights, and therefore her appointment cannot be approved. The petitioner relies on a line of cases and the explanatory note to Ext.P5 arguing that the amendment retrospective from 01.06.2015 makes the exemption for age over 50 years irrelevant to the selection where test qualifications apply, turning the issue into inter se seniority among those eligible for Headmaster posts. The Government Pleader cites decisions supporting a plain-language interpretation of Rule 44A and the non-obstante provision shielding the third proviso’s preference for test-qualified teachers. The court ultimately holds that the third proviso, with its non-obstante clause, overrides exemptions and that where both exempted and test-qualified teachers exist, the latter must be preferred; thereby the petition is dismissed. The matter was discussed with reference to various prior judgments and amendments, and the court notes a referral to a larger bench for broader interpretation.
Mat.Appeal No.399 of 2013 This matrimonial appeal arises from a marriage solemnised on 05.05.1996 between the appellant Sathyan alias Raju and the 1st respondent Jaya. The Family Court, Thodupuzha, by a judgment dated 22.09.2012 in O.P.(HM) No.29 of 2009, dismissed the petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of dissolution on the ground of cruelty. The appellant contends that after the birth of the second child, the 1st respondent refused sexual relations and engaged in illicit relationships with the 2nd respondent Amanullakhan and the 3rd respondent Lal, and even accompanied the appellant’s house with the 2nd respondent, leading to threats of suicide and eventual withdrawal from the matrimonial home on 01.12.2008. He argues these acts amount to mental cruelty and justify divorce when viewed cumulatively against the background of their cultural and familial context. The 1st respondent denies the allegations, claiming she faced cruelty from the appellant and that the accusations of infidelity are baseless. The court below found insufficient evidence of adultery or cruelty, but on appeal, the Kerala High Court, applying the standard of proof in civil matrimonial matters as preponderance of probabilities and considering the totality of evidence, holds that cruelty is proven. The judgment sets aside the Family Court’s order, and dissolves the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with effect from today.
CRL.REV.P NO. 813 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by Ushakumari challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000 issued in 2015 to discharge a debt allegedly incurred in 2014. The accused was tried in CC 75/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, and convicted; the Sessions Judge, in appeal, confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence to operate from one day to the date the Court rose. The revision petition contends, among other grounds, that service of demand notice under Section 138(b) NI Act was defective since Ext. P4 showed the endorsement ‘unclaimed,’ and the postal witnesses did not establish service. The trial court and the Appellate Court rejected this challenge, holding that service can be presumed when the notice is sent to the correct address by registered post, a position supported by case law. The High Court cites several Supreme Court decisions to explain revisional jurisdiction as supervisory, not a second appellate review; it emphasizes that interference requires perverse, wholly unreasonable findings or non-consideration of material. Ultimately, the revision petition is dismissed. The Court grants two months to pay the fine and directs surrender by 04.02.2023, with execution deferred until 03.02.2023."
This is a review petition filed by Indus Towers Limited under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging Annexure A2 judgment dated 07.04.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 5684/2021. The writ petition had disposed of the challenge by setting aside the District Telecom Committee’s Ext.P8 order (24.02.2021) and directing the Committee to reconsider the petitioner’s proposal to construct a telecom tower using Valve Regulated Lead Acid Batteries (VRLAB) instead of power from KSEB or diesel generators. The court directed that the Committee consider the petitioner’s request expeditiously, with notice to the temple trust and objectors, and to decide within a month after receipt of the request, while flagging the legal contention that the tower may not be permitted in a residential zone. Paragraph 6 records the petitioner’s stand to use VRLAB batteries and the court’s direction to file a proper reconsideration request. The review petition contends there is an error apparent on the face of the record. During hearing, the matter references well‑established Supreme Court principles on review: the decision is not an appeal in disguise, the grounds must reveal a patent error, and the review jurisdiction is extremely limited. Applying those principles, the High Court concludes that none of the grounds fall within Order XLVII, Rule 1, and the petition is dismissed. Annexures A1–A4 accompany the petition.
This writ petition, filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeks a court direction to erase encumbrances noted in Exts. P6 to P9 from the Encumbrance Register maintained by the Sub Registrar, Valapattanam, Kannur, so as to enable registration of Ext. P4, the sale certificate, issued on 27.02.2023 following SARFAESI proceedings against the mortgaged property. The petitioner-bank had loaned Rs. 1.35 crore to Jasmi.P, creating an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for a 4.05-acre property in Chirakkal Village; after default, SARFAESI proceedings led to an auction and sale certificate. The Sub Registrar refused to register Ext. P4 due to alleged encumbrances. The bank contends that under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act the borrower's right of redemption is extinguished, and post-mortgage attachments do not affect the bank’s right to sell or the title to the property, so the attachments should be effaced. The petitioner relies on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar and Keechery Bank and Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar to support this proposition. The court ultimately holds that post-mortgage encumbrances should be effaced and directs the Sub Registrar to register Ext. P4 if otherwise in order, while noting that the rights of attaching creditors remain intact. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
