Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has said orders of constitutional courts (of Supreme Court and high courts) are binding on all executive and statutory authorities even outside the territorial limits of the issuing court.The HC made the observation, directing the state’s department of stamps and registration as well as the jurisdictional sub-registrars to give effect to directions issued by the Bombay high court in a case involving sale deeds and agreements executed by managing director of Electrex (India) in Bengaluru.In the case heard by Bombay HC, petitioner Kotak Mahindra Bank said it lent money to Electrex (India). Upon failure to repay, it issued a demand notice for Rs 896.4 crore and started proceedings under SARFAESI Act, which allows financial institutions to auction residential and commercial properties of defaulting borrowers to recover their loan outstanding balance.The bank said it took symbolic possession of secured assets of Electrex (India). In the insolvency proceedings, Bombay HC adjudicated Anant V Hegde, managing director of Electrex (India), and DV Sathe as insolvent.The bank alleged that even after the court verdict, Hegde travelled to Bengaluru and alienated certain immovable properties, including factory premises situated at Yeshwanthpur, in favour of third parties.The Bombay HC directed jurisdictional sub-registrars at Vijayanagar, Rajajinagar and Nagarbhavi in Bengaluru to declare all agreements and sale deeds executed by Hegde as null and void, and desist from entertaining any further transactions in respect of the mortgaged properties.As no steps were initiated despite communication of the Bombay HC’s order, Kotak Mahindra Bank approached Karnataka high court.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum pointed out that directions issued by Bombay HC were “fully binding” on the registering authorities in Karnataka.The court said the respondent authorities were under “an unequivocal constitutional and statutory obligation to implement the directions issued by the high court of Bombay, and any delay or failure in doing so warrants judicial correction by issuance of a writ of mandamus.”The judge further observed, “Article 226(2) operates as a constitutional mechanism to ensure judicial remedies are real, effective and enforceable across territorial lines, and the present case exemplifies the necessity of such a provision.”The court imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the department of stamps for inaction and directed it to consider the bank’s representation within four weeks.
