Locus standi and bona fide purchaser protection secured release of plots; review could not reopen final winding-up directions.

A Delhi HC note records that a review challenge to directions for release of plots failed because the reviewing applicant was neither a party to the original proceedings nor otherwise shown to have independent locus standi; the attempt was treated as a proxy effort to reopen settled issues, and the review was dismissed. On the merits, the purchasers' registered sale deeds, consideration paid over time, and verified bona fide status supported release of the plots. The Court treated the absence of material for fraudulent preference, the authorised execution of deeds, prior final orders in favour of similarly placed buyers, and the Official Liquidator's no-objection as decisive. The RBI prohibition order was held not to defeat completed transfers to bona fide purchasers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review petition was maintainable and whether the reviewing applicant had independent locus standi to challenge the earlier directions for release of plots; (ii) Whether the applicants' sale deeds and claims were protected as bona fide transactions for valuable consideration and were not hit by fraudulent preference or the RBI prohibition order, so as to entitle them to release of the plots.

Issue (i): Whether the review petition was maintainable and whether the reviewing applicant had independent locus standi to challenge the earlier directions for release of plots.

Analysis: The reviewing applicant was neither a party to the original proceedings nor an appellant in the earlier appeal, and her challenge was found to be only a proxy attempt to reopen concluded issues. The earlier orders in favour of similarly situated buyers had already attained finality, and the grounds raised in review were substantially repetitive of objections already considered and rejected. The Official Liquidator also expressed no objection to the present applicants receiving similar relief.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for want of locus standi.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants' sale deeds and claims were protected as bona fide transactions for valuable consideration and were not hit by fraudulent preference or the RBI prohibition order, so as to entitle them to release of the plots.

Analysis: The applicants had booked the plots in 1995, paid consideration over time, obtained registered sale deeds before the winding-up date, and were found by the One-Man Committee and the SFIO to be bona fide plot purchasers. The Court relied on the earlier final orders in favour of similarly placed buyers, the absence of any material showing fraudulent preference, the authorised status of the company representatives who executed the deeds, and the Official Liquidator's no-objection. The RBI prohibition order was held not to invalidate duly completed transfers in favour of bona fide purchasers, and the objections of ex-management were treated as unmerited.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to release of their plots and their claims were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The concluded effect of the decision is that the 14 applicants obtained relief by way of release of their plots, while the attempt to unsettle the prior final orders through review was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded claim of a bona fide purchaser for value, supported by verified records and prior final orders, cannot be displaced by a belated proxy challenge lacking independent locus standi, and a review cannot be used to reopen settled winding-up directions where the Official Liquidator does not object.

---