Gati Cargo Management Service vs Sbl Industries Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2711 Del

           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014

+      CO. APPL. NOS. 648/2012 & 1838/2013 in CO.PET. 321/2001
GATI CARGO MANAGEMENT SERVICE                            ..... Petitioner

                                  versus

SBL INDUSTRIES LTD.                                      .... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr Yogesh Jujia & Mr Rajeev Kumar
For the Respondent   : Mr Barun Kumar Sinha with Ms Pratibha
                       Sinha for SBL worker's union.
                       Mr Amit Goel & Mr Prabhat Kumar, for
                       Ex-Management.
                       Mr Yogesh Jagia & Mr Amit Sood, for
                       Applicant in CA Nos.648/2012 & 1838/2013.
                       Mr Mayank Goel and Mr Lalruatpuia Sailo,
                       for Official Liquidator.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

                               JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. CA No.648/2012, has been filed by the applicants seeking recalling of the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in CA No.1557/2011 whereby the Court directed cancellation of sale deeds registered with the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai with respect to the property belonging to the company in liquidation situated at Plot No.74/A, Sub Plot No. 74/AII of Village Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, P.S.No.203, District Ranchi, Jharkhand and handing

over the said property to the Official Liquidator. The applicants have also prayed for confirming the sale of the said property in favour of the applicants. CA No.1838/2013 has been filed by the applicants seeking modification of the order passed by this Court on 11.04.2012 in CA No. 648/2012 (Although, in the prayer made seeks modification of the order dated 30.11.2011, paragraph 9 of the application mentions order dated 11.04.2012). This court, by an order dated 11.04.2012 in CA No.648/2012, had directed maintenance of status quo with respect to the said property and had restrained the applicants from transferring, selling or alienating the said property.

2. The principal question to be considered is whether registration of a sale deed relating to a property situated in Bihar, with the office of Sub- Registrar - Mumbai would be valid.

3. The brief facts of the case are that SBL Industries Ltd. (company in liquidation and hereinafter referred to as the 'company') was the owner of the property situated at Plot No.74/A, Sub Plot No. 74/AII of Village Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, P.S. No.203, District Ranchi, Jharkhand since 1976. The said property is hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property'. The applicants are stated to have purchased the said property, divided into eight shares, from the company for a total consideration of `40,00,000/- consisting of `5,00,000/- for each of eight divided shares of the subject property. The said consideration was paid during 18.10.2000 to 07.02.2001. In pursuance thereof, eight sale deeds dated 07.02.2001 were executed and registered with sub-Registrar, Mumbai. The said sale deeds are hereinafter referred to as the 'subject sale deeds'.

4. On 12.09.2001, the present company petition - CP No.321/2001 was filed by a creditor of the company on account of non payment of its dues. On 30.11.2004, the said company petition was admitted by this Court and the Official Liquidator was appointed as a Provisional Liquidator. On 26.01.2006, an order for winding up the company was passed by this Court.

5. Thereafter, on 22.07.2011, the Official Liquidator filed an application, being CA No.1557/2011, for cancellation of the subject sale deeds on the ground that the registration was void as the subject property was situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Sub- Registrar, Ranchi, however, the sale deeds were registered with the Sub- Registrar, Mumbai. This court, by an order dated 30.11.2011, allowed the said application and cancelled the registration of the subject sale deeds and directed the District Magistrate, Ranchi to take over the possession of the property and hand over the same to the Official Liquidator. It is relevant to mention that the counsel appearing for ex-management of the company, on instructions, consented to the cancellation of the registration.

6. Thereafter, on 10.04.2012, the applicants filed the present application

- CA No.648/2012, for recalling of the directions passed by this Court on 30.11.2011 and also for confirming the sale of the subject property in favour of the applicants. This Court, by an order dated 11.04.2012, issued notice in the application and directed status quo to be maintained. The court further directed that any rent/income generated from the subject property be deposited in a new joint bank account to be operated jointly by the applicants as well as the Official Liquidator. The court also restrained the

applicants from selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or parting with the possession of the subject property till further orders.

7. The applicants were directed by this court on 18.04.2013 to file a complete statement of account and pursuant to the said order, an additional affidavit has been filed by the applicants stating that the applicants deposited a sum of `18,000/- on 05.07.2012 and further deposited a sum of `15,000/- in the joint account maintained with the Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Account No.3075000101759189).

8. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application being CA No.1838/2013, seeking modification of the order dated 11.04.2012 to enable the applicants to use the subject property for running the sales/workshop of Maruti and to make suitable changes in the super structure of the subject property in terms of the Letter of Intent dated 13.09.2013.

Submissions of the parties

9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has contended that the order dated 30.11.2011 was passed by this Court in absence of and without notice to the applicants in whose favour the subject sale deeds were executed. The learned counsel also pointed out that the impugned order was, apparently, passed on the concession given by the ex-management of the company. He submitted that the position of the ex-management would now be adversarial to that of the applicants since their interest would be to resile from the transaction already entered into and, therefore, this Court

erred in proceeding on the basis of the concession given by the ex- management.

10. The learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the registration of the subject sale deeds in favour of the applicants were valid and in accordance with the statute enforce. He submitted that by virtue of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act 1991, Sections 28 and 30 of the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable to the State of Bihar were amended with effect from 08.08.1991. Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 was also omitted from the statute by virtue of 'The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001' (Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001) enacted by the Parliament. The subject sale deeds were registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai on 07.02.2001 i.e. prior to the Act 48 of 2001 coming into force and omission of Section 30(2) by its virtue. Thus, the registration of the subject sale deeds could not be cancelled on the ground that they were registered at Mumbai.

11. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rumi Sein & Anr. v. Sanjay Sureka: GA No. 778 of 2011, GA No. 1102 of 2011, CS No. 41 of 2011, decided on 30.06.2011, in support of his contention that the omission of Section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as applicable to the state of Bihar would only effect the authorities in that State. As the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra retained Section 30(2), which empowered the Registrar, Mumbai to receive and register any document referred to in Section 28 of the said Act, the said authority would continue to be governed by Section 30(2). He, thus, argued that there was no

infirmity in the registration of the subject sale deeds being affected by the Office of the Sub-Registrar at Mumbai.

12. In the alternative and without prejudice to the contention that the registration of the subject sale deeds at Mumbai were valid, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the registration was held to be invalid, nonetheless, the deeds executed on behalf of the company would evidence an agreement for sale of the property. He submitted that as the entire consideration had been paid and possession of the subject property had been handed over to the applicants, by virtue of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the subject property stood transferred to the applicants.

13. It was also submitted that the transaction for purchase of the subject property was a bonafide transaction. It was further contended that the property in question was acquired by the applicants more than one year prior to the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator and prior to the commencement of the winding up of the company. The applicant also submits that as per the directions of the Revenue Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, an additional sum of `87,000 per sale deed was deposited for mutating the property in question and the same was endorsed.

14. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator contended that the registration of the sale transaction with respect to the property is void as in terms of Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, every document mentioned under sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub- section (1) of Section 17 and sub-section (2) of section 17, and sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc) of Section 18 of the Act is required to be presented for registration

in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub- district the whole of the property to which such document relates is situated. Since, in the present case, the property is situated within the territorial limits of the Sub- Registrar, Ranchi, the subject sale deeds could not be presented for registration with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai. It was contended that the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai did not have any legal authority to register the sale deeds at Mumbai and therefore, the registration for the subject sale deeds were void and were, rightly, cancelled.

15. It was further contended that, in terms of Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956, any transfer of property including immovable property made by a company not being a transfer or delivery in the ordinary course of business and if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a winding up petition, would be void against the Liquidator. It was contended that, in the present case, the winding up petition was presented on 12.09.2001 whereas the property was transferred on 07.02.2001 i.e. within a period of one year from the date of filing of the petition. Admittedly, the transfer was not in the ordinary course of business therefore, the sale was void against the Liquidator. It was submitted that the contention of the applicants that the sale transaction was valid as the subject sale deeds were executed much prior to the filing of the winding up petition was erroneous.

16. In addition, it was submitted that the sale transaction in question was not authorised by the company and, thus, invalid. It was submitted that Mr P.C. Sen certified a copy of a Resolution of the company alleged to be passed at the meeting of the Board of Directors on 24.11.2000. The said

certificate dated 18.12.2000 was signed by Mr P.C. Sen as a Director and the resolution furnished designated him as a Chairman of the company. The alleged resolution authorized Mr P.C. Sen and Mr Ajay Jain, Chief Executive Officer to finalize and execute requisite documents for the sale of property. It was contended that Mr P.C. Sen was neither a shareholder of the company nor a Director of the Company and thus had no authority to sign the said Board Resolution and therefore, the said Board Resolution and all acts done in pursuance thereof were invalid. It was further submitted that a number of payments were alleged to have been made on 18.10.2000, 09.11.2000 and 10.11.2000 in consideration of the alleged sale transaction which implied that the alleged consideration for the sale of the property prior to the said signing of the said Board Resolution. According to the Official Liquidator, the same indicated that negotiations for sale of the property and an agreement regarding the same was entered into much prior to 18.12.2000. And, it was contended, at the material time neither Mr. Ajay Jain nor any other person had the requisite authority to sell the property or enter into any agreement or receive any consideration for the same. Therefore, the transaction in question was invalid.

17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

18. The issue to be addressed in the present proceedings is whether the order dated 30.11.2011 is required to be recalled as the said order was passed in the absence of the applicants and without notice to them. The second question that is to be considered is whether the registration of the subject sale deeds could be cancelled on account of the subject property being situated in Ranchi, which at the material time was a part of the State

of Bihar, and the registration being effected by the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai. The essential controversy being whether by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') an immovable property situated in Bihar could be registered by the Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai.

19. The principles of natural justice are now well established. It is well settled that an opportunity of being heard before an adverse order is passed in judicial proceedings is an integral part of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, it is indisputable that the order cancelling the subject sale deeds, which were executed in favour of the applicants and a direction for the applicants to be dispossessed of the property, is an order adverse to the applicants. The said order thus could not be passed without due notice to them and without a fair opportunity of being heard. Although, the Official Liquidator had sought orders adverse to the applicants, they were not made parties to the proceedings. This fundamental flaw in the procedure would vitiate the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 and the same is liable to be recalled on this ground alone.

20. In view of the above, it is not necessary to consider the controversy with regard to cancellation of the registration of the subject sale deeds. However, since I have heard extensive arguments on this question, I deem it appropriate to consider the same. The sale deeds in question were executed on 07.02.2001 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai on 07.02.2001. At the relevant time, Sections 28 and 30 of the Act as applicable to the State of Bihar read as under:-

"28. Place for registering documents relating to land. - Save as in this Part otherwise provided every document mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section 1 and sub-section (2) of section 17 insofar as such documents affect immovable property and in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc) of section 18 shall be presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district or district the whole of the property to which such document relates is situated in the State of Bihar.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

30. Registration by Registrars in certain cases. - (1) Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him."

21. By virtue of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 enacted by the legislature of the State of Bihar, the Act as applicable to the State of Bihar was amended; Section 28 of the Act was amended to read as quoted above and Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act was omitted. Prior to the said amendments, Sections 28 and 30 of the Act read as under:-

"28. Place for registering documents relating to land. - Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in section 17, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), (c),

(d) and (e), section 17, sub-section (2), insofar as such document affects immovable property, and section 18, clauses

(a), (b) (c) and (cc), shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

30. Registration by Registrars in certain cases. - (1) Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him.

(2) The Registrar of a district in which a Presidency-Town is included and the Registrar of the Delhi district may receive and register any document referred to in section 28 without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document relates."

22. At the material time of execution of the subject sale deeds, the aforesaid un-amended provisions were on the statute book as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. By virtue of 'The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 48 of 2001) enacted by the Parliament, sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act was deleted with effect from 24.09.2001.

23. Given this situation, the question arises as to whether the existing law - the Registration Act, 1908 would prevail despite the enactment of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991. In my view, this controversy can best be answered by a reference to Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The Registration Act, 1908 occupies the field falling under Entry 6 of the Concurrent List, thus, by virtue of Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India, the Parliament as well as the State Legislature would have the power to legislate in respect of the subject matter. Article 254 of the Constitution of India is reproduced below:-

"254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.-- (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the

Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State."

24. By virtue of Article 254(1) of the Constitution, in the event of any conflict of laws enacted by a State Legislature and by the Parliament in respect of matters listed in the concurrent list, the legislation as enacted by the Parliament would prevail. In a situation, where a State Legislation has obtained the President's assent, the same would prevail in that State. Although, in the present case, there are no two different enactments, however, the principles that are enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of India would be applicable. Thus, in my view, the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991, would prevail over the existing law (i.e pre-constitutional legislation) as applicable to the State of Bihar. However, it is relevant to note that the same does not imply that the law as amended by the Bihar Legislature would have extraterritorial application. The last four words of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India - "prevail in that State" clearly restrict the applicability of the amendment to the state of Bihar. That being

so, the Registration of the sale deeds in question by the registering authorities in Mumbai by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Act are not flawed.

25. It is apparent from the above that the registration authorities in the State of Maharashtra were duly empowered to register the documents in accordance with the Central Legislation- the Act. There is no dispute that Section 30 of the Act as applicable to the State of Maharashtra included Sub-section (2). Accordingly, the act of the registering authorities in Mumbai, in registering a document pertaining to the subject property situated at Ranchi cannot be faulted. The limited question that needs to be addressed is whether the deletion of Section 30(2) of the Act as applicable to Bihar by the Bihar Legislature would have the effect of voiding the registration effected by the registering authorities at Mumbai.

26. The learned counsel for the applicants had drawn my attention to the amendments to Section 28 of the Act as applicable to the territory of Pondicherry, which were carried out by virtue of the Pondicherry Act 5 of 1999 w.e.f. 04.05.1999. Section 28 as amended by the Pondicherry Act 5 of 1999 reads as under:-

"28. Place for registering documents relating to land.- Save as in this Part otherwise provided,-

(a) every document mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and

(e) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 17, in so far as such document affects immovable property and in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (cc) of section 18 shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate in the Union Territory of Pondicherry; and

(b) any document registered outside the Union Territory of Pondicherry in contravention of the provisions of clause

(a) shall be deemed to be null and void."

27. It was pointed out that the amendment to Section 28 brought about by the Bihar Legislature did not include a clause similar to clause (b) of Section 28 of the Act as introduced by Pondicherry Act 5 of 1999. According to the applicants this indicated that it was not the intention of the Bihar Legislature to void any registrations in respect to property situated at Bihar, which were effected by the authorities in the erstwhile presidency towns and Delhi. It is settled law that the legislature expresses its intent through the language of the statute and accordingly, the language of a statute must be interpreted to discover the intention of the Legislature. In the present circumstances, one is hard pressed to find any other intention of the Bihar Legislature in deleting Section 30(2) of the Act, except to provide that registering documents other than in a manner as expressed by Section 28 of the Act was not available. However, that in my view would not be the same as expressing a legislative intent to void registrations of all documents that are effected, by virtue of section 30(2) of the Act, by Registrars of the districts in which the erstwhile Presidency-towns are located or by the Registrar of Delhi.

28. It is relevant to note that although, the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 omitted Sub-section 2 of Section 30 from the Act. No attendant change was brought in Section 66 and 67 of the said Act which read as under:-

"66. Procedure after registration of documents relating to land - (1) On registering any non-testamentary document relating to immovable property, the Registrar shall forward a

memorandum of such document to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to himself in whose sub-district any part of the property is situate.

(2) The Registrar shall also forward a copy of each document, together with a copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in Section 21, to every other Registrar in whose district any part of such property is situate.

(3) Such Registrar on receiving any such copy shall file it in his Book No. 1, and shall also send a memorandum of the copy of the Sub-Registrars subordinate to him within whose sub-district any part of the property is situate.

(4) Every Sub-Registrar receiving any memorandum under this section shall file it in his Book No. 1.

Section 67. Procedure after registration under Section 30, sub-section (2).- On any document being registered under section 30, sub-section (2), a copy of such document and of the endorsements and certificate thereon shall be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any part of the property to which the instrument relates is situate, and the Registrar receiving such copy shall follow the procedure prescribed for him in Section 66, sub-section (1)."

29. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that in the event a document was registered under Section 30(2) of the Act by a Registrar, a copy of same would be required to be forwarded to the Registrar in whose district the immovable property is situated. Section 66(1) of the Act mandates the Registrar to forward the memorandum of the document received by him to each Sub-Registrar subordinate to him in whose sub-district any part of the property is situated. In the event the legislative intent was to disregard any document that was registered by a Registrar of the district in which the erstwhile Presidency towns are located or by the Registrar of Delhi then the provisions of Section 67 of the Act

would also have been omitted. In this regard it is relevant to note that the 'The Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 enacted by the Parliament, which finally omitted section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 also deleted section 67 of the said Act. Accordingly, in my view, the Registration effected by the registering authority at Mumbai cannot be cancelled on account of the amendment brought about by the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991.

30. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Rumi Sein (supra) has also upheld the registrations effected outside the State of West Bengal even though Section 30(2) of the Act had been deleted by the West Bengal Legislature. The West Bengal Legislature had enacted the West Bengal Act 17 of 1996. By virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act was omitted from the Act as applicable to the State of West Bengal. In the case of Rumi Sein (supra), a controversy arose with reference to two deeds of conveyance relating to the property situated in West Bengal which were registered in June 1999, at Mumbai. The Calcutta High Court considered the controversy in the following manner:-

"There is a further technical objection to the power of attorney taken by the plaintiffs. They say that Section 28 of the Registration Act, as is relevant in the context, provides that a document affecting immovable property shall be presented for registration in the office of a sub-registrar within whose sub- district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. The plaintiffs refer to Section 30 of the Act and the effect of such provision following its amendment. Prior to the relevant amendment of Section 30 of the Act, sub-section (2) thereof permitted, inter alia, the registrar of a district in which a presidency town was included to receive and register any document referred to in Section 28

without regard to the situation in any part of India of the property to which the document related. Sub-section (2) was omitted from Section 30 of the Act by a West Bengal amendment that came into effect in 1997. Subsequently, there was a Central amendment that altogether removed Section 30(2) from the statute. The plaintiffs suggest that upon the West Bengal amendment coming into effect in 1997, no document affecting any immovable property in West Bengal could have been received or registered by any registrar in Mumbai. Prima facie, such argument is not acceptable. Upon the West Bengal amendment coming onto effect, no registrar of a district in West Bengal in which a presidency town was included could have received or registered a document affecting any immovable property irrespective of where the property was situate. But the registrar in Mumbai was not subject to this amendment and, notwithstanding the West Bengal amendment, the registrar in Mumbai continued to be governed by Section 30(2) of the Registration Act till it was obliterated in 2001. Since the two Mumbai documents were executed in 1999, notwithstanding the West Bengal amendment, there does not appear to have been any infirmity in the Mumbai registrar receiving and registering the same."

31. I concur with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and the non-applicant have sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment by pointing out that, whereas Section 28 of the Act had been amended by the Bihar Legislature, similar amendments to Section 28 of the Act were not carried out by the West Bengal Legislature. However, in my view, the Amendment to Section 28 brought about by virtue of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 would not be material to the controversy in the present matter. By virtue of the said amendment brought about in Section 28 of the Act, the Legislature has specified that the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district or district, the whole property was situated, would be the authority to receive and register

the documents. In the un-amended Section 28, even the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district, a portion of the property was situated, was entitled to register the document. The amendment of Section 28 is not germane to the question, whether the Registrar of assurances of erstwhile Presidency towns and Delhi, by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Act, could register the document conveying immovable property in Bihar.

32. In view of the above discussion, an order cancelling the registration of the subject sale deeds only on the ground that the same were registered by the office of the Registrar in Mumbai, is not warranted. However, it is clarified that I have not examined the contention that the registration of the said documents was fraudulent and of the transaction alleged to have been entered into in respect of these subject property is a subterfuge or otherwise invalid. It is open for the Official Liquidator (or any other affected party) to challenge the alleged transaction of sale of the subject property on all grounds including violation of Section 531A of the Companies Act, 1956 and nothing stated in the present judgment should be construed as precluding the non-applicants from raising any dispute with regard to the said transaction. The present order can be read only to mean; (a) that the applicants are entitled to be heard in any matter, wherein the transaction entered into by them is impugned; and (b) the registration of subject sale deeds cannot be cancelled only on the ground that the sale deeds were registered in Mumbai and not by the concerned Sub-Registrar in Bihar.

33. The order dated 30.11.2011 is recalled and CA No. 1557/2011 is restored. It is noticed that CA No. 1557/2011 impugns the subject sale deeds on limited grounds. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator (and other

non-applicants)are permitted to file a fresh application to challenge the subject sale deeds and the transaction recorded therein on all grounds as available. Let the said application(s) be filed within a period of eight weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the applicant shall maintain status-quo as to the subject property. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and the non-applicants, the prayer made by the applicants for declaring the sale of the subject property to them as valid cannot be considered at this stage.

34. CA No.648/2012 is partially allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

35. CA No.1838/2013 has been filed by the applicants for modification of the order dated 30.11.2011 (or 11.04.2012 passed in CA 648/2012). Since the order dated 30.11.2011 is recalled and CA 648/2012 is disposed of, the present application does not survive and is, accordingly, disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 27, 2014 RK