THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA O.S.A.NO.20 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Y. Neelakanta Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator. At their request, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The appellants filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act and under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 {“the Act” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 20.07.2010 in Company Application No.117 of 2008 in Company Petition No.100 of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants herein, claiming to be the purchasers of the property in question in pursuance of the sale dated 10.09.2003, sought to lay their right, title and interest, on the ground that they are bona fide purchasers. It is also their case that they have paid substantial amounts and further, they claim to be in possession as well. The present Company Petition No.100 of 2002 is filed on 27.06.2002. Admittedly, the purchase made by the petitioner was subsequent to filing of the petition and consequently, it is hit by the bar as provided for under Section 537 (1) (b) of the Act. Similar is the situation, where some transactions sought to be done prior to filing of the Company Petition as per Section 531 and 531A of the Act. Be that as it may, there is bar under the aforesaid provision for the purchaser. On an application filed by the Official Liquidator purportedly under Section 536 (2) read with Section 537 (1) (b) of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, after having gone into the claim as well as the objections raised by the Official Liquidator, the learned Single Judge allowed the same holding that the purchase of the appellants is totally void and accordingly, the sale is liable to be set aside and hence, it was set aside. Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that admittedly, the purchase of the appellants is much later to filing of the application in C.P.No.100 of 2002 and the bar created under the aforesaid provision makes any such transaction illegal and void. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to put forth the claim on the basis of bona fide purchase and having paid substantial amounts, these factors do not come into assistance and they get over the bar as created under the aforesaid provisions. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge is right in setting aside the purchase made by the appellants. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is always open for the appellants to avail any other remedies available under the law for recovery of amounts, if any, paid by them. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 19th October 2010 RRB