Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing The Travancore Devaswom Board vs The Deputy Examine Of Local Fund Audit on 15 November, 2018

Bank Of Baroda vs District Collector on 13 July, 2021

The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the judgment in WP(C) No. 35082/2019 and the decisions inTravancore's case (Supra) and State Bank of India's case (Supra) has not attained finality. But this Court can not wait indefinitely till those judgments attained finality. As far as this particular case is concerned, there is a judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 35082/2019 by which, the orders passed by the Village Officer and District Collector are already quashed by this Court WP(C) Nos. 6348 and 10107 OF 2021 17 and this Court specifically stated that Section 26E of the SARFEASI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act create a first charge by way of priority to the banks, financial institutions to recover and satisfy their debts notwithstand to any statutory first charge in favour of the revenue. In such circumstances, till the above judgment is varied or modified by the division bench, that judgment will stand. In such circumstances, according to me, these writ petitions are to be allowed. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed with the following directions.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2020

8. The question which falls for consideration is whether the State has better right over the secured assets for recovery of its dues. This question is no more res integra. The petitioner has rightly relied on the judgments of this Court in Travancore Devaswom Board V. Local Fund Audit reported in 2020(3) KLT 296 and State Bank of India V. State of Kerala reported in 2019(4) KLT 521. Perusal of the rulings cited by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner makes it clear that WP(C).No.35082 OF 2019 5 Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act create a 'First Charge' by way of a priority to the Banks/Financial Institutions to recover and satisfy their debts, notwithstanding any statutory 'First Charge' in favour of the Revenue.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Arams Tourism Private Limited vs The Authorised Officer on 1 September, 2021

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the ARC and the Bank, Shri.C.A.Joy, submitted that the afore contentions urged on behalf of the Sub Registrar are untenable because the equitable mortgage over WP(C) NO.8767/2021 & Con. Cases 10 the properties in question were created on 29.09.2008 and 16.11.2009 respectively, as regards those covered by W.P(C)Nos.8767 of 2021, 8836 of 2021 and 8887 of 2021; and therefore, it has been well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court, including Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner, Local Fund Audit & Others [2020 (3) KHC 129] and Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar [2020(6)KLT 68] that none such can stand in the way of the rights of the Bank and the ARC in proceeding against the property under the SARFAESI Act; or in the auction purchaser or his assignees from having their title deeds registered in terms of law. The learned standing Counsel, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be allowed.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - D Ramachandran - Full Document
1