Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
V.M.M.S.Madhava Mohan vs Sub Registrar on 13 April, 2017
In the said
circumstances and taking note of the fact that the orders of
attachment of the property in question were after the creation
of equitable mortgage of the same with Federal Bank we do
not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge following the dictum in
Madhan's case (supra), carrying the directions to effect
mutation of the property as also to efface all encumbrance
W.P.(C). No.10099 of 2024 :5:
over the property effected after 27/06/2014, the date on
which the property in question was mortgaged with Federal
Bank".
Mrs.Shamla K.U vs The Sub Registrar on 30 October, 2018
In
similar circumstances, ie., the party at whose instance the
attachment was granted was not a party in the writ petition, this
Court in Shamla K. U. and Another v. Sub Registrar, Office of
the Kodungallor Sub Registrar[2018 KHC 811] held in
paragraph 11 as follows:
Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs The Sub Registrar on 2 August, 2021
7. This Court in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Sub Registrar,
Feroke [2023 KHC Online 9452] while considering an identical
issue referring to Section 89(5) of the Registration Act, 1908 has
held that since the attachment subsequent to creation of equitable
mortgage has lost its efficacy and has to be obliterated from the
records, the same can be done by the Sub Registrar by filing the
certified copy of the order/judgment of this Court in Book No.1
maintained by the Sub Registrar.
1