THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO O.S.A. Nos. 31 TO 39 AND 43 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) All these appeals are filed at the instance of third party claimants who are aggrieved against the orders of the learned single Judge in dismissing the applications filed by them to implead themselves in the proceedings. The entire claim of the appellants squarely rests on the footing that they are the bonafide purchasers of the properties of M/s. Midwest Hire Purchase Limited and M/s. Midwest Growth Fund Limited and they are in no way concerned with the properties of M/s. Midwest (India) Industries Limited, a company which is under liquidation and proceedings are still on. The learned single Judge by taking into consideration the varied checkered events in the proceedings in the process of liquidation in C P No. 39 of 2000 in the matter of M/s. Midwest (India) Industries Limited which has been ordered to be liquidated and Official Liquidator was appointed, did not find favour with the appellants and dismissed the same. The main ground of rejection of impleading themselves in those proceedings is that of earlier proceedings, where the very title of the vendors of the appellants herein was held to be not a valid one and those proceedings have become final, hence constitute resjudicata, thus the applications claiming through them who are parties to the earlier proceedings who lost negativing their right, title and interest cannot come forth once again in these proceedings. As noted by the learned single Judge, undisputedly all the properties are in the name of M/s. Midwest (India) Industries Limited and other properties standing in the name of other group of companies were held to belong to M/s. Miewest (India) Industries Limited, which has undergone into liquidation, therefore all these properties automatically stood vested in the Company Court and Official Liquidator under the law, will be totally in control of the same. It was also found that the liabilities would even extend into the hands of the third parties, if they are in possession. The learned senior counsel Mr S Ramachandra Rao, mainly submitted that having regard to the fact that the appellants are the bonafide purchasers for value under registered documents, therefore they are entitled to have a say in the proceedings and raise all the objections to which they are entitled to under the law. Further, it was pointed out that the learned single Judge while dismissing the applications placed reliance on proceedings, observations and findings in a writ and writ appeal which could not have gone into the serious questions of title and therefore would not come against and thus the learned single was not right in simply falling back on its findings and rejecting the applications of the appellants for impleading. These submissions were sought to be rebutted on behalf of the contesting respondents including the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Official Liquidator. In view of the aforesaid contentions as urged and also on perusal of the material, the point which arise for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the appellants can seek any indulgence to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings. It was found that one Dr N R Pinna is one of the founder promoter of M/s. Midwest (India) Industries Limited, along with other near relatives has collected substantial amounts towards deposits whereby several assets were acquired in the name of M/s. Midwest (India) Industries Limited, apart from the individual members and other group of companies which have been promoted by the very same founder promoters. Since no amount are forthcoming, the depositors initiated said proceedings which has lead to filing of W P No. 32498 of 1998 by Dr N R Pinna and M/s. Midwest India Industries Limited. In spite of several steps taken, it appears no amounts have been paid, hence, consequent proceedings have been initiated before the Company Court on an application filed by the Reserve Bank of India for liquidation. Accordingly, the Official Liquidator was appointed as provisional liquidator and certain properties were disposed of. On an application filed by the Official Liquidator in C A no. 2332 of 2004 for conducting sale of the properties. In the process, the other companies i.e., M/s. Midwest Hire Purchase Limited and M/s. Midwest Growth Fund Limited filed applications in C A No. 168 and 169 of 2005 to get themselves impleaded and objecting to the sale of the properties. Though, these two companies were impleaded, however, their objections were rejected on merits by orders dated 19.7.2005 by recording categorical finding that the properties purchased in the name of those two companies belong to the company under provisional liquidation, therefore the objections by them that properties cannot be proceeded against, was negatived. The said companies filed appeals in O S A nos. 41 and 42 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 2.3.2007 upheld the orders of the learned single Judge rejecting the objections raised by the said companies. The matter was further carried in appeal to Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition and the same was also dismissed. In view of these proceedings, on a proper appraisal of the relative claims from both sides, this Court has found that those companies cannot have any say in respect of the properties for being proceeded against and the said findings have become final. Therefore, the claim of the appellants is not an independent as such but only a fresh approach from its two companies, though they claim to be bonafide purchasers, however, if the vendor have already held to be not having any right or title, the question of appellants securing any rights under any purchase, does not arise. It is on this account, the learned single Judge found that the appellants claim cannot be sustained and in fact gets barred under principles of resjudicata, since their own vendor’s title rejected and thus there cannot be any re-agitation of the very same question. Thus, the findings are part of the very same proceedings, therefore the appellants cannot give any blink there to or get over in any way in these proceedings. Even in these appeals except making a statement against the writ proceedings, though, which may or may not have any relevancy as such, irrespective of its binding nature. The fact that the proceedings referred to above are on the original side alone and at the instance of the alleged predecessor in title of the appellants, where their title is negatived and the findings of the learned single Judge are binding on the appellant therefore they cannot come forth on record. In regard to these proceedings, nothing much has been said in these appeals either, nor can they be assailed in any manner, having regard to the detailed reasons given by the learned single Judge, especially by going through the entire checkered events and various proceedings all-along. The present attempt is apparently appears to be nothing but to stall the legitimate exercise in the liquidation proceedings. In the above circumstances, keeping in view the categorical findings of the learned single Judge which find a substantial reasons to support , we are in entire agreement there with and nothing has been pointed out to show any perversity or otherwise in this regard. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the claim of the appellants herein nor there exist any prima facie case much less even any enforceable claim which warrant at-least a semblance of enquiry to find out truth or otherwise. Though this Court is conscious of the fact that in an application of this nature at the stage of impleading the parties, this Court need not and should not go into the merits of the claims from either side, however, it has been well established principle that whenever a party seeks to go on record, necessarily it has to make out a prima facie semblance of a claim warranting a probe and an enquiry to go into the same, irrespective of the denial thereof by the other side. Since in the present case, the appellants having set up a claim only through those companies and as a purchasers there from, whose claim already stood negatived, hence, there cannot be any question of any enforceable claim and there are no merits in the appeals. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fail and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R KANTHA RAO,J DATE: -08-2009 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO O.S.A. Nos. 31 TO 39 AND 43 OF 2007 Date: -08-2009