Bona fide purchaser protection prevents administrative cut-off dates from defeating certification and dividend claims under the Special Court Act.

A procedural cut-off fixed for administrative convenience could not defeat a bona fide purchaser's claim for certification of tainted shares where the governing statute prescribed no time limit and the delay was not attributable to the claimant. The Supreme Court held that the certification mechanism under the Special Court Act had to be applied consistently with its object, so innocent investors were not deprived of legitimate dividends and accruals because of circumstances beyond their control. Rejection of the application solely for delay was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the Custodian was directed to process the certification claim and examine entitlement on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's application for certification of tainted shares could be rejected merely because it was filed after the cut-off date fixed by the Special Court, when the statute prescribed no such time limit and the delay was not attributable to the appellant.

Analysis: The appeal arose under section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. The Court noted that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the shares and had no role in the transactions that rendered them tainted. The cut-off date for filing certification applications had been fixed for administrative convenience at the instance of the Custodian, but no statutory provision in the governing law created a rigid time bar for certification. The Court further held that the certification procedure had to be applied in a manner consistent with the object of the Act, so that innocent investors were not deprived of their legitimate dividends and other accruals because of circumstances beyond their control.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appellant's application solely on the ground of delay was unsustainable. The application was required to be entertained and the appellant's entitlement to certification and consequential dividend payments was to be examined on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the Custodian was directed to process the appellant's certification claim and secure payment of the accruing dividends in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural cut-off fixed for administrative convenience cannot defeat the claim of a bona fide purchaser where the governing statute does not prescribe a time limit and the claimant's delay is not attributable to any fault of his own.

---