IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31678 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, 8TH FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 682031, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.PETER THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. SRI.A.M.SADIQUE, S/O.LATE V.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 36, K.M.MANZIL, ST.ALBERTS LANE, COCHIN-31. * ADDL R4. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., JOYS TOWERS MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER DT 9.12.2008 IN I.A.NO.14112/08) ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATHAI(SR) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR ADDL.R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF LETTER DT 12.10.1994. P2 COPY OF NOTICE DT 18.8.08. P3 COPY OF SALE NOTICE DT 25.9.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31678 OF 2008 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows. As a collateral security to the loan availed by M/s.Star Refineries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Star Agro and Wheat Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., the 3rd respondent created an equitable mortgage in favour of the petitioner by depositing the title deed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated at the instance of the additional 4th respondent, namely KSIDC, to sell the very same property for recovering all the amounts due to the KSIDC. Case of the petitioner is that there is no jurisdiction and the 1st respondent has not ascertained the details of the property including the existing charge over the property. The existing mortgage in favour of the petitioner was not considered. Learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent does not dispute that in the light of the mortgage created in WPC.31678/08 : 2 : favour of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, it may not be open to the additional 4th respondent to proceed against the very same property ignoring the mortgage. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P2 and P3 are quashed. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE