Kerala High Court
M/S. Adstar Advertising Company vs The Authorized Officer on 2 June, 2025
2025:KER:38309
WP(C) No. 41704 of 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41704 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. ADSTAR ADVERTISING COMPANY,
BANK STREET, PLAZA JUNCTION,
HIGHWAY, THALIPPARAMBA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 141
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MUHAMMAD ANAS C.P.,
S/O MUSTHAFA C., AGED 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CEEPEE HOUSE,
NEAR THALIPARAMBA JUMA MASJID,
THALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 ADSTAR BUSINESS VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGISTERED OFFICE- TMC -XI/1449 -B,
TMC-XI/1449-C, TMC 1449-D KAKKATHODE ROAD,
THALIPPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670141
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MUHAMMAD ANAS C.P.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SMT.SITHARA RAHEEM V.K.
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA R.
2025:KER:38309
WP(C) No. 41704 of 2024
-2-
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
BANK OF BARODA - ROSARB- ERNAKULAM,
PALLIMUKKU, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682016
ADV.K.ANAND, STANDING COUNSEL, BANK OF BARODA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:38309
WP(C) No. 41704 of 2024
-3-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.41704 of 2024
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm, in whose favour
Ext.P2 sale certificate was issued by the respondent Bank. The 2 nd
petitioner is the company in whose favour Ext P3 sale certificate
regarding the machinery and other movable properties was issued
by the Bank. The sale was confirmed, and after confirmation, the 1 st
petitioner firm and the 2nd petitioner company requested the Bank
to register the immovable property in the name of the 2 nd petitioner
on the ground that the 1st petitioner firm and the 2nd petitioner
company are sister concerns.
2. The petitioners approached this Court with the same
prayer, and writ petition, W.P.(C) No.34640/2023 was disposed of as
per Ext.P7 dated 06.06.2024 directing the Bank to take a decision,
following which Ext.P9 decision was taken on 27.06.2024, rejecting
2025:KER:38309
the request of the petitioners on the ground that the Bank will not
register the property in the name of any other person other than the
successful bidder. They have also placed reliance on the sale notice
and the conditions, which stipulated that no request for
inclusion/substitution of names other than those mentioned in the
bid, in the sale certificate will be entertained and that the sale
certificate will be issued only in the name of the successful bidder.
3. There is nothing on record that shows the above
assertion of the Bank is wrong. The 1st petitioner firm and the 2nd
petitioner company being separate and distinct legal entities, the
stand of the Bank cannot be faulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27746/2024 dated
18.12.2024, which held that there is nothing in law preventing the
registration of the sale deed in the names of the persons nominated
by the petitioner and in the absence of any prohibition in law. The
said judgment cannot apply to the petitioners for the reason that in
the instant case, the sale notice had an explicit condition that the
2025:KER:38309
sale certificate would be issued only in the name of the successful
bidder. In the case of such a restriction/condition that the
petitioners were aware of even at the time of participating in the
auction, the stand of the Bank cannot be said to be illegal in any
manner.
5. It is also worthwhile to refer to Rule 9(2) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which also stipulates that the
sale shall be confirmed in favour of the purchaser who has offered
the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the
authorized officer and shall be subject to confirmation by the
secured creditor. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioners
cannot be granted.
The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
bpr
2025:KER:38309
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41704/2024
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 DATED 01.04.2010
Exhibit P5 THE DETAILS OF DIRECTORS OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER COMPANY SHOWN IN THE RECORD
OF THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS
DATED 17.10.2023
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
DATED 04.05.2023
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
34640/2023 DATED 06.06.2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
15.06.2024
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE
RESPONDENT DATED 27.06.2024
