ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel for the applicant and learned advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala for the respondent. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : “A. Be pleased to hold and declare that non-agricultural land bearing Survey No. 118/1, 2 and 3, included in T.P. Scheme No. 2 allotted Final Plot No. 128/14, subplot No.2 bunglow no. 47, admeasuring 382 Sq. mtrs. (including constructed area 270.26 sq.mtrs) Village Koba, Taluka - Gandhinagar, Dist. Gandhinagar (herein after referred to “property in question”) does not belong to the Respondent No. 3 company since the same having purchased by the Applicants vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.2014 i.e. one year prior to presentation of winding up petition being Company Petition no. 179 of 2015 against the Respondent No. 3 i.e. on 05.05.2015 as well as order dated 17.08.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court appointing provisional liquidator in Company Petition No. 179 of 2015 and further be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 herein from taking any action under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. B. Be pleased to hold and declare that considering the date of purchase by the applicants on 09.05.2014 i.e. prior to one year from the presentation of winding up petition on 05.05.2015 and therefore does not fall within the purview of Section 531-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and be pleased to further issue appropriate directions for ratification of sale transaction dated 09.05.2014 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to release the symbolic possession of property in question; C. Be pleased to pass any other and further or such other order/s that may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. By way of the present application, the applicant herein is seeking direction to remove the security and seal put up over the property in question of the applicant (Bungalow No.47 in the scheme “Shukan Place”), as the said property has been purchased by the applicant by entering into a registered sale deed on 09.05.2014 between the applicant and erstwhile management and therefore, the said property was not the property of Shukan Corporation Private Limited (from 09.05.2014) at the time when the order dated 17.08.2015 came to be passed in Company Petition No. 179 of 2015 of attachment of the said property. 4. Learned advocate Mr. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel for the applicant submitted that the applicant herein is a bona fide purchaser of the subject property and applicant herein has purchased the subject property for valuable consideration and has registered sale deed in his favour. The said transaction is entered into in good faith and therefore, the said transaction cannot be void and Official Liquidator cannot take possession of the property in question under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant submitted that the registered sale deed for Bungalow No.47 in Shukan Palace executed in favour of the applicant be ratified and deemed to be a valid transaction. 5. Learned advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala for the Official Liquidator placed reliance on the report of the Official Liquidator and accepted the fact that the registered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the applicant herein on 09.05.2014. The winding up application came to be filed on 05.05.2015 and the order of winding up came to be passed on 17.08.2015 by this Court. Learned advocate Ms. Davawala for the Official Liquidator submitted that under the provisions of Section 531-A of the Companies Act, 1956 sale would be said to be a valid sale, if the sale was prior to one year of the proceedings having been filed for winding up. Learned advocate Ms. Davawala submitted that the sale deed which has been entered into between the respective parties, though admittedly is prior to winding up order being passed, there is a difference of 4 days. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 531 A of the Companies Act. Section 531 A of the Companies Act, 1956 reads thus : “531A. AVOIDANCE OF VOLUNTARY TRANSFER. Any transfer of property, movable or immovable, or any delivery of goods, made by a company, not being a transfer or delivery made in the ordinary course of its business or in favour of a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a petition for winding up by 1 [the Tribunal] or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up of the company, shall be void against the liquidator.” 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties since the sale deed was entered into on 09.05.2014 and under the provisions of Section 531 A, the computation of period of one year would be 09.05.2014 and therefore, there is a difference of 4 days. In view of above, whether this Court can consider the said difference and validity of the sale deed entered into between the parties. This Court deems it appropriate to refer to the decisions of this Court in the case of Hawa Controls vs. OL of Tirupati Foundry P. Ltd and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC Online Guj 237 (para 8, 9, 11 and 12) and in the case of Official Liquidator of Trimline Health & Resort Ltd vs. GSFC & Ors reported in 154 Company Cases 480 (Gujarat) (Para 34), which reads thus : “Hawa Controls vs. OL of Tirupati Foundry P. Ltd and Ors. reported in 2007 SCC Online Guj 237 8. After having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having gone through the affidavit filed in support of Judge's Summons, documents attached with the Judge's Summons and the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, the Court is of the view that it is true that during the pendency of the winding up petition, the transactions in question were taken place. However, it has not come on record that the applicant was aware about the fact that winding up proceedings are pending before the Court. It is true that Ex-Directors might be aware about winding up proceedings but nobody has ever contemplated that the winding up order might be passed in the pending winding up petition. It is an admitted position that the winding up order was passed much after the completion of the transactions of sale and while invoking the provisions contained in Sections 531 and 531-Aof the Companies Act 1956, one has to see that whether the transactions in question are fraudulent or not or whether any preferential treatment has been given. Looking to the records available, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the properties were transferred in a fraudulent manner or with inadequate consideration. The sale deeds are registered sale deeds. Looking to the records available, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the properties were transferred in a fraudulent manner or with inadequate consideration. The sale deeds are registered sale deeds. After sale of the properties, they were registered with the authorities, names were transferred in the Municipal record and the Society's record and all these transactions appear to be legal and valid. There is no allegation from any corner that the properties were undervalued as sale deeds have been duly registered. Even before selling the properties in question, necessary resolutions have been passed and those resolutions have come on record. 9. Before this Court, reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Monark Enterprises v. Kishan Tulpule and Ors. 74 Company Cases 89 wherein it is held that Section 531-A of the Companies Act, 1956 provides for 'Savoidance of voluntary transfers' made by a Company within a period of one year during the presentation of a petition for winding up (i) if such transfer was not made in the ordinary course of its business, or (ii) if such transfer was not made in good faith for valuable consideration. If the Court comes to the conclusion that such transfer, though made within a period of one year before presentation of the petition, was made either in the ordinary course of business or in good faith and for valuable consideration, such transfer would not be annulled. The burden of proving that the impugned transaction was not entered into in the ordinary course of business or in good faith and for valuable consideration would be on the Official Liquidator or the Creditors impugning the transaction. 11. The law does not presume the transaction to be a fraudulent preference merely because it was entered into within a period of six months prior to the commencement of winding up. If the transaction was entered into as a result of lawful pressure of a bona fide creditor to recover his dues, the transaction of transfer could not be treated as a fraudulent preference. This question does not arise in the present case as it is not the case of the applicant that the applicant has entered into the transaction in question as a result of any pressure to recover its dues. 12. This question does not arise in the present case as it is not the case of the applicant that the applicant has entered into the transaction in question as a result of any pressure to recover its dues. 12. Taking overall view of the matter and considering the relevant statutory provisions as well as decided case law on the subject, the Court is fully convinced with the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and hence, the declaration sought for in the present Judge's Summons is granted. The transaction in question cannot be hit by the provisions contained in Sections 531 and 531-A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Official Liquidator is, therefore, directed not to take possession of the properties in question.” Official Liquidator of Trimline Health & Resort Ltd vs. GSFC & Ors. : 19. The purpose of the section is to preserve the assets of the Company and to enable the Company to carry out transactions that might be for the benefit of those interested in the assets of the Company. The substance of the section is that any transfer of property or goods made by a Company otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, will be void, if it had been made within one year from the presentation of a winding-up petition or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up. Section 531-A has put the initial burden upon the one who wants to avoid the transaction to establish that the transaction was not made in the ordinary course of business or that it lacked good faith. It is only when this initial onus is discharged that it will shift to the Official Liquidator. An application under this section for setting aside a transfer can be allowed where either it is proved that there was no consideration for the transaction or that the consideration was so inadequate as to raise a presumption of want of good faith. Even if there was valuable consideration, the Liquidator may show want of good faith in the sense that the transferee entered into the transaction with the knowledge of all the circumstances with a view to shield the assets against the claims of creditors. Where a transaction is sought to be annulled under this provision, the burden of proof is on the Official Liquidator or the person who impugns the transaction of transfer. Where a transaction is sought to be annulled under this provision, the burden of proof is on the Official Liquidator or the person who impugns the transaction of transfer. If the Court comes to the conclusion that such transfer though made within a period of one year before the presentation of the petition, was made either in the ordinary course of business or in good faith and for valuable consideration, such transfer would not be annulled. Thus, crucial question in all cases is whether the transferor's dominant intention was to deny assets to creditors.” 7. Learned advocate Ms. Davawala submitted that considering the ratio as laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions undisputedly, the payment is undertaken by the applicant much prior to the commencement of the liquidation proceedings. Even if, considering the date of institution of liquidation proceedings to be taken into consideration and the date of filing of the winding up petition i.e. 05.05.2015, the aforesaid transaction can be said to be effected prior to one year. The transaction can be said to be undertaken in good faith and such transaction can be said to be bona fide. Learned advocate Ms. Davawala also submitted that on taking the bank statements which were produced before the office of the Official Liquidator, the transaction is for a valid consideration. 8. On the aforesaid ground, this Court is inclined to grant prayer as prayed for by the applicant herein. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to valid the sale ratifying the sale deed dated 09.05.2014 for the Bungalow No.47 entered into and executed by the applicant herein as being valid sale transaction. 9. Further, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicant on instruction states that the amount of Rs.50,000/- per year due and payable to the office of the Official Liquidator for safeguarding asset of the present applicant for a period of five years till date would be deposited with the office of the Official Liquidator within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of this order. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.