<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 2240 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466876</link>
    <description>A sale certificate issued under SARFAESI may be registered despite a later attachment by a civil or family court, because the secured creditor enforces security interest without court intervention and the registering officer&#039;s role is administrative; refusal on that ground is unsustainable. However, the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, direct deletion or effacement of the attachment entry in Book No.1, since the Registration Act only permits recording of the attachment and its later revocation by the attaching court, not erasure by the registering authority. A Single Judge also lacks power to refer such matters to a Full Bench, and earlier decisions allowing effacement under Article 226 were overruled to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 21:08:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2240 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466876</link>
      <description>A sale certificate issued under SARFAESI may be registered despite a later attachment by a civil or family court, because the secured creditor enforces security interest without court intervention and the registering officer&#039;s role is administrative; refusal on that ground is unsustainable. However, the High Court cannot, in writ jurisdiction, direct deletion or effacement of the attachment entry in Book No.1, since the Registration Act only permits recording of the attachment and its later revocation by the attaching court, not erasure by the registering authority. A Single Judge also lacks power to refer such matters to a Full Bench, and earlier decisions allowing effacement under Article 226 were overruled to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>