Allowed

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC8 Mar 2022WP(C)/3995/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the Sub Registrar to register a Sale Deed for a flat involved in a pending DRT attachment case. Although the bank conceded the loan was honoured, the Court ruled that due to the DRT not sitting, the registrar must act expeditiously instead of waiting for a formal order they cannot obtain.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Registrar to register the Sale Deed expeditiously, within two weeks, despite the attachment, pending future formal order from the DRT.

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PLATINUM SUPER STRUCTURES PVT.LTD., REG. OFFICE 36/2176 D, PLATINUM HOUSE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K.NANDANAN. BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, RETAILED ASSETS CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, RACPC, 1ST FLOOR, VENKARATH TOWERS, BYE PASS JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682 024, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER. 2 THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHENGAMANAD SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, DESOM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-682 102.

¶9

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MEKKAD, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 589. BY ADV S.EASWARAN

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SRI.S.EASWARAN.S.C AND SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, singularly prays that the 2^nd respondent – Sub Registrar, be directed to register a Sale Deed with respect to Flat No.D in the ground floor of “Platinum Airport Lounge” at Nedumbassery, de hors the order of attachment brought over it by the 1^st respondent – State Bank Of India from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

¶17

Sri.V.A. Vinod – learned counsel appearing

¶18

for the petitioner, submitted that the entire loan liability to the 1^st respondent – Bank with respect to the apartment in question has already been honoured and that they have permitted registration of the document as has been prayed for in this writ petition.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

He added that his client is, however, facing a practical difficulty in obtaining orders lifting the attachment from the DRT, because it is now not sitting.

¶22

Smt.Rajeswari, representing Sri.S.Easwaran – learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Bank, affirmed the afore submissions of Sri.V.A.Vinod and added that her client has no objection in the document in question being registered, conceding that the loan liability as regards the apartment in question has been honoured.

¶23

The learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that merely because the 1^st respondent has no objection in registering the Sale Deed, the Sub Registrar may not be directed to do so because, under the provisions of Section 89(5) of the Registration Act, the entry of attachment is

¶24

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

already reflected in the Revenue Records, as per the orders of the DRT. She submitted that, therefore, unless the said Tribunal issues a specific order lifting the attachment, it will not be possible for the Sub– Registrar to act as per the request of the petitioner.

¶27

I must say that, in normal circumstances, the

¶28

afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader would be apposite. However, there is a specific intervening special circumstance involved in this case, namely, that the DRT is not sitting for the last several months, nor has it resumed as of now. Therefore, as per the directions of the honourable Supreme Court, it is now obligated on this Court to act in the manner as the DRT would have done; and therefore, am of the view that merely for the reasons stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, relief to the petitioner

¶29

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

cannot be delayed, especially when the Bank has no objection.

¶32

In the afore circumstances and taking specific note of the circumstances that the DRT is not presently sitting for the last several months, I order this writ petition and direct the Sub Registrar to register the document in question de hors the attachment brought on it by the State Bank of India, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date on which same is presented before him.

¶33

As far as the petitioner and the Bank is concerned, they are obligated to approach the DRT and

¶34

obtain formal orders lifting the attachment in question, which shall then be communicated to the Sub Registrar, who will, for the purpose of the records, incorporate it in the books as per law thereafter. This

¶35

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

shall be done within a period of two months from the date on which the DRT resumes its sitting.

¶38

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶39

ANB

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3995 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3995/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.712/2020 IN OA NO.196/2020 DATED 12.06.2020. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.03.2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2021.

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponamma, Vs the Tahsildar

Arakkachal Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas M.C Vs State of Kerala

Mani Jacob Vs the District Registrar

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar