SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
P.M.ABDUL SALAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42434 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
For the Respondents: SRI. K. M. FAISAL, GP

Judicial orders must be duly documented and communicated for administrative compliance in property attachment matters.

Headnote:The petitioner had availed a loan from the second respondent Co-operative Bank and mortgaged properties as security. Following a default, arbitration led to prior judgments finding in favor of the petitioner concerning the sale certificate. The court addressed a continuing issue regarding property attachment. The petitioner's request for lifting the attachment was complicated by administrative requirements. The court maintained that proper documentation must be submitted to resolve encumbrance concerns expeditiously. Therefore, the High Court ordered the petitioner to produce a certified copy of the related judgment to the third respondent within a specified timeframe.

Table of Content
1. loan secured by mortgage led to judicial proceedings regarding property attachment. (Para 2)
2. court observed the need for proper documentation to lift property attachment. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner had availed a loan of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank. As security for the said loan, two items of property were mortgaged in favour of the 2nd respondent. On default, arbitration proceedings were initiated. Ext. P1 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9076 of 2004 filed by the petitioner before this Court, whereby the sale certificate issued in favour of the Bank was set aside. By judgment dated 05.04.2005, this Court directed that, upon filing an appropriate petition for re-

delivery, the property shall be re-delivered to the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext. P2 encumbrance certificate still contains an entry relating to the property in question reflecting the attachment. After disposal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner produced a certified copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent and requested that the attachment entry be lifted from the records. However, by Ext. P6 communication, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that unless a communication is received directly from the Court which passed the order, the request for lifting or effacing the attachment entry cannot be acted upon.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had produced only a photocopy of Ext. P1 before the 3rd respondent and it is for that reason Ext. P6 communication was issued. Admittedly, Ext. P1 judgment has attained finality, as is evident from Ext. P4 communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to produce a certified copy of Ext. P1 judgment before the 3rd respondent. If such certi the 3rd respondent shall efface the relevant entry in Book No.1 relating to the endorsement concerning the property in question, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top