Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRAHMAMANGALAM GRAMASWARAJ SERVICE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BRAHMAMANGALAM GRAMASWARAJ SERVICE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 31790 of 2006(H) [2007] RD-KL 14977 (6 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31790 of 2006(H)

1. BRAHMAMANGALAM GRAMASWARAJ SERVICE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

3. M.K.MUHAMMED, S/O. KHADERKUTTY,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :06/08/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 31790 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a Co-operative society. Third respondent availed a loan by mortgaging the property. Third respondent defaulted. Petitioner filed arbitration case and obtained an award and filed Execution Petition. According to the petitioner, petitioner has got first charge over the property mortgaged to recover the amount due. Respondents 1 and 2 initiated steps against the property for recovery of arrears of sales tax.

2. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

" 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to finalise the sale proceedings including confirmation of sale and issuances of sale certificate etc. to the auction purchaser pending final disposal of the above writ petition.

2. Issue a necessary writ or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed against the properties of the third respondent WPC No.31790/06 2 including institution/firm from where arrears are due as well as 15 cents property of the third respondent situated in Sy.No.54/14A and other assets."

3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent besides the learned Government Pleader.

4. Fourth respondent is the auction purchaser in the revenue sale. According to him, he is the auction purchaser in a sale to enforce the first charge available under the Sales Tax Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner is not even served with the order of sale and petitioner seeks to challenge the said proceedings in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector, Kottayam to issue to the petitioner the order of sale in favour of the additional fourth respondent made to realise the sales tax arrears from the third respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sale certificate shall not be issued in favour of the fourth respondent for a period of two weeks from the date WPC No.31790/06 3 of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv. WPC No.31790/06 4


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.