Kerala High Court
Central Bank Of India vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2008
Author: H.L.Dattu
Bench: H.L.Dattu, A.K.Basheer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1720 of 2008()
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, WILLINGDON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICER,
3. M/S.SOUTH ASIAN TRADE LINKS,
4. MRS.FARIDAH HAJI VAHEED, PROPRIETRIX,
5. MR.M.A.K.AZAD (MR.ABDUL KALAM AZAD)
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :27/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1720 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13817 of 2008 dated 13th June, 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal.
(2) The one and the only question that is raised and canvassed by Sri.Devan Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the Bank has the first charge and also the first right to recover the amounts due to them from the immovable properties mortgaged to the Bank at the time of disbursement of the loan amount.
(3) Per contra, it is the contention of Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, the learned Government Advocate, that, the State has the first charge for realisation of the tax due to the State under the Sales Tax provisions.
(4) In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled by various decisions of the apex Court. The Courts have held that it is the State which has got first charge and it can recover amounts due to them even by resorting to sale of the mortgaged properties to the Bank. W.A.No.1720 of 2008 2
(5) At the time of hearing of this writ appeal, we are also informed by Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Advocate, that respondents 1 and 2 have already sold the mortgaged property on 10.6.2008, and thereby have created a third party interest.
(6) In view of all these developments, in our opinion, nothing survives in this writ appeal for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ appeal as having become unnecessary.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk