IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13817 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, WILLINGDON ISLAND BRANCH, COCHIN-03, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. M/S. SOUTH ASIAN TRADE LINKS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX MRS. FARIDA HAJI VAHEED, 39/4572, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, AVENUE ROAD, HIG-19, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-36. 4. MRS. FARIDAH HAJI VAHEED, PROPRIETRIX, SOUTH ASIAN TRADE LINKS, G-211, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, AVENUE ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 5. MR. M.A.K.AAZAD, (M.ABDUL KALAM AZAD), G-211, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR AVENUE ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 13817/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.3.2008 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DATED 19.3.2008. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.13817 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Branch of Central Bank of India. Petitioner has advanced certain facilities to the third respondent at the request of respondents 3 to 5. Equitable mortgage is created. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P1 communication claiming that the properties of respondents 4 and 5 are to be sold for realisation of sales tax dues from respondents 3 and 4. Ext.P2 is the proclamation of sale. Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 as illegal and unsustainable. Apparently the contention of the petitioner is that there is a mortgage in favour of the petitioner and therefore any enforced sale under the Revenue Recovery Act to satisfy the dues under the Sales Tax Act is impermissible. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that as matters stand today, the question raised by the petitioner stands answered against the petitioner and the position is that it is open to the State to bring to sale the property for the satisfaction of the amounts due under the Sales Tax Act even overlooking the claim of the mortgagee. He also submits that the issue is covered against the petitioner. WPC. 13817/2008. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the plea of the learned Government is in any way misplaced. In view of the fact that the question is covered against the petitioner, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking the remedies available to it under law and under the Revenue Recovery Act. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb