Attachments by an Arbitration Tribunal do not warrant refusal to register sale certificates when subsequent to the certificate issuance.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Gigimon Issac, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L, the learned Government Pleader.

2. The 1^st petitioner Bank had given certain credit facilities to the 5^th respondent and since the credit facilities were not cleared, the Bank had attached the properties of the debtor and that property was sold to the 2^nd petitioner herein. A sale certificate was also issued pursuant to the sale effected as above. The 1^st petitioner sought for registering the sale certificate (Ext.P3) on the basis of the sale effected as above before the 2^nd respondent herein. The 2^nd respondent refused to register the sale deed as seen from Ext.P5 communication dated 30.09.2023 making reference to an attachment made by the Arbitration Tribunal in a proceedings pending before it. It is seeking to challenge the afore proceedings that the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. As regards the sustainability of Ext.P5, this Court notices the judgment of a Division bench of this Court in Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd vs. Saneesha M.S. ( 2024 (6) KHC 238 ), whereby the Division Bench held that such attachments effected by the Arbitration Tribunal may not be a reason for not registering the document. Furthermore, this Court also notices that even the attachment effected is subsequent to the sale certificate at Ext.P3.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Hence, this writ petition would stand allowed setting aside Ext.P5 and directing the 2^nd respondent to register the sale certificate referred to above. Needless to say that upon completion of registration as above, the prayer of the petitioners for mutation as well as for accepting tax from the 2^nd respondent is also to be considered by the Village Officer / Panchayath.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE