Kerala High Court
M/S. Adstar Advertising Company vs The Authorized Officer on 6 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34640 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. ADSTAR ADVERTISING COMPANY,
BANK STREET, PLAZA JUNCTION, HIGHWAY,
THALIPPARAMBA.P.O, KANNUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MUHAMMAD ANAS.C.P, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O MUSTHAFA.C, RESIDING AT CEEPEE HOUSE,
NEAR THALIPARAMBA JUMA MASJID,
THALIPARAMBA .P.O, KANNUR - 670141.
2 ADSTAR BUSINESS VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE- TMC -XI/1449 -B,TMC-
XI/1449-C,TMC 1449-D, KAKKATHODE ROAD,
THALIPPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670141,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MUHAMMAD ANAS.C.P.
BY ADVS.
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
BANK OF BARODA - ROSARB- ERNAKULAM,
PALLIMUKKU, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682016.
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
RAFEEK. V.K.
U.M.HASSAN
W.P.(C)No.34640 of 2023
:2:
SARITHA K.
ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY
PHILLIP VARGHESE THOMAS
V.P.REJITHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.34640 of 2023
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
The 1st petitioner is a Partnership Firm in the name and
Style Adstar Advertisement Company. The 1 st petitioner is
represented by its Managing Director. The 2 nd petitioner is
Adstar Business Ventures Private Limited. Though the 1 st
petitioner is a Partnership Firm and the 2nd petitioner is a
Private Limited Company, the Directors and Partners are
almost one and the same.
2. As per Ext.P1 notice, two items of secured
properties of a loanee were put to auction under the
SARFAESI Act by the Bank of Baroda. The 1 st petitioner bid in
the auction and became successful bidder for an amount of
₹35,92,000/-. The Bank issued Ext.P2 Sale Certificate in
favour of the 1st petitioner.
3. After confirmation of sale, the 1 st petitioner-Firm
and the 2nd petitioner-Company requested the Bank that
registration of immovable property be done in the name of the
2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner-Firm and the 2nd petitioner-
Company are sister concerns. The petitioners state that even
though the sale of immovable property was confirmed in the
name of the 1st petitioner, there is no legal impediment in
registering the immovable property to the 2nd petitioner-
Company since the petitioners are sister concerns.
4. The request so made by the petitioners are not
entertained by the Bank. Therefore, the petitioners are before
this Court seeking to direct the respondent that the immovable
property in respect of which the sale has been confirmed by
Ext.P2 Sale Certificate be registered in the name of the 2 nd
petitioner-Company.
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of
the Bank and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel
pointed out that the demand of the petitioners is
unsustainable in view of the terms ad conditions of the auction
notice published by the respondent. In Ext.R1A Auction Notice
published by the respondent, Paragraph 12 says that no
request for inclusion / substitution of names, other than those
mentioned in the bid, in the Sale Certificate will be
entertained. The Sale Certificate will be issued only in the
name of the successful bidder.
6. Standing Counsel also relied on Rule 9(2) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which provides
that the sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who
has offered the highest sale price. In view of the statutory
provisions and the conditions of auction, Sale Certificate can
only be issued in the name of the 1 st petitioner, contended the
Standing Counsel.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondent.
8. After arguing the matter for some time, Counsel for
the petitioners pointing out that petitioners 1 and 2 are sister
concerns and are owned by same group of persons, stated
that the petitioners shall make a representation to the
respondent. The respondent may be directed to consider the
representation for conveying the property in the name of the
2nd petitioner.
In view of the stand so taken by the petitioners, the writ
petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make a
further representation to the respondent seeking to convey
the property in favour of the 2 nd petitioner. If the petitioners
submit such representation within a period of two weeks, the
respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate
decision thereon within a further period of one month.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34640/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED
02.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE
OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DATED 21.12.2021
ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER -
BANK OF BARODA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE
WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTIES
DATED 04.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE
AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA TO
M/S ADSTAR BUSINESS VENTURES PRIVATE
LIMITED
Exhibit P4 THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER FIRM
Exhibit P5 THE DETAILS OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER COMPANY SHOWN IN THE RECORD
OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION
SHOWING THE NAME OF PARTNERS OF THE
1ST PETITIONER FIRM AND DIRECTORS OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPANY SUBMITTED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FIRM TO THE
RESPONDENT BANK
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
IN RELATION TO THE AUCTION PUBLISHED
BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.12.2020
