ORDER : (A.Y. Kogje, J.) : 1. This group of applications are filed by Rare Assest Reconstruction Ltd. Company seeking Leave to Appeal for challenging the various orders passed by the Company Court Judge in the respective Company applications by which the Company Applications of the private respondents came to be allowed. 2. The subject matter being common, all the applications are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. Civil Application No.591 of 2023 in F/O.J. Appeal No.6498 of 2023 in Company Application No.11 of 2022 in Company Petition No.179 of 2015 to be the lead matter. 3. The matter pertains to the order passed by the Company Court in application filed by the private respondents praying for releasing of their respective properties from the proceedings of liquidation mainly on the ground that the private respondents have respectively entered into Registered Sale-deed of the immovable properties, which belong to the Company under winding up. However, such Registered Sale-deed was much prior to the proceedings for winding up being initiated. This respective Company Applications came to be allowed by the Company Court by the respective impugned orders. As a result of which, the plots of land regarding which, transaction in the form of either Agreement to Sale or Sale-deed had taken place, were ordered to be released in favour of the private respondents. 4. The applicant, an asset reconstruction company, herein claims to be holding Mortgage-deed of the entire plots of land within which, respective plots of land are located and in connection with which, each private respondent being independent plot holder filed separate applications before the Company Court, but without making applicant as party, though interested, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, Leave to Appeal is prayed for. 5. Original proceedings being the Company Petition No.179 of 2015 were for winding up of one Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd.; respondent No.3 herein, filed by Daga Marketing Pvt. Ltd.; respondent No.2 herein under Section-433 and 434 of the Companies Act 1956 and the learned Company Judge by its order dated 17-08-2015 was pleased to order admitting the petition and appoint the Provisional Liquidator. Thereafter, accordingly, the respondent No.4- Company came under the winding up proceedings. The applicant herein has substituted Religare Finvest Ltd. by deed of assignment of debt. Thereafter, accordingly, the respondent No.4- Company came under the winding up proceedings. The applicant herein has substituted Religare Finvest Ltd. by deed of assignment of debt. 5.1 Religare Finvest Ltd. had advanced the loan facility to the respondent No.3- Company to the tune of Rupees Twenty Five Crore and in order to secure the said loan registered mortgage was created on the property named as Project ‘Shukan Palace-III’. It appears that in the year 2014, the respondent No.3 was declared as ‘Non Performing Asset (NPA)’ by the then Religare Finvest Ltd. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that based on the Mortgage-deed, an interest was created in favour of the applicant in connection with the property, which is mortgaged by the Company under winding up. 6.1 It is submitted that the respondent No.3 had executed registered Sale-deed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 on 30-01-2014 and thereafter, the Company Petition No.179 of 2015 came to be filed by the respondent No.2 seeking winding up of the respondent No.3; Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. however, prior thereto the Mortgage deed was also executed. 6.2 It is submitted that the fact that the applicant had interest in the property arising out of the Mortgage-deed was brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator by letter dated 07-10-2021 and also brought to the notice Assignment Agreement dated 27-09-2021 with Religare Finvest Ltd. However, the Official Liquidator did not allow the applicant to be substituted. 6.3 It is submitted that the Official Liquidator thereafter filed the Report and pursuant to the order passed on such Report, claim was invited from all classes of creditor and the workman and in connection with this, an Advertisement was published in the Newspaper in March, 2022 and therefore, once again, the applicant by letter dated 19-04-2022 lodged his claim with the Official Liquidator claiming to be the Secured Creditor and the Mortgagee of the company under liquidation. In this letter, the applicant had communicated that the applicant would remain outside the winding up proceedings to pursue his remedy towards redemption of the asset, which was mortgaged as a Security with the applicant. However, it was clarified that the applicant is not relinquishing his right for redemption of mortgage merely because, he has registered his claim as a Secured Creditor. However, it was clarified that the applicant is not relinquishing his right for redemption of mortgage merely because, he has registered his claim as a Secured Creditor. 6.4 It is submitted that it was the duty of the Official Liquidator to put before the Company Court. This facts particularly interest of the applicant in the property of the Company under liquidation as the claim of the applicant is solidly based on Mortgage-deed executed by the Company under winding up. It is submitted that had this aspect been brought to the notice of the Company Court, obviously the Company Court would have held that the applicant is necessary party, while taking decision on the property, which is mortgaged to the applicant. 6.5 It is submitted that the private respondents in whose favour the Registered Sale-deed was executed by the Directors of the Company under winding up, was much later than that of the Mortgage-deed in favour of the applicant. Therefore, it was their duty to join the applicant as interested party. 6.6 It is submitted that when the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the Mortgage-deed and when the applicant issued the Notice, it was stand of the Official Liquidator asking the applicant in his communication to withdraw such proceedings. Therefore, on one hand, the applicant is not able to assert his right on the basis of the Mortgage- deed and on the other hand, claim of the applicant as Creditor in the winding up proceedings, is also not permitted to participate. Therefore, the applicant is left high and dry and without any remedy and therefore, the applicant has cause, when the part of the property belonging to the Company under winding up, mortgage with the applicant towards security and by the order of the Company Court (impugned), part of the said property is ordered to be released taking it out of the winding up, thereby severely jeopardizing the rights of the applicant. 6.7 Lastly, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the applicant has no quarrel with the possession of the property of the property purchased by the private respondents from the Director of the Erstwhile Company prior to the winding up proceedings. However, whatever sale proceeds have been received by the Official Liquidator towards out of sale of such property, the applicant has right to stake claim over such amount. 7. However, whatever sale proceeds have been received by the Official Liquidator towards out of sale of such property, the applicant has right to stake claim over such amount. 7. As against this, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the applicant has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order primarily on the ground that the plot of land was already transacted in favour of the respondents by Registered Sale-deed, much prior to the proceedings of liquidation and therefore, property cannot be treated as an Asset of the Company, which is ordered to be wound up. 7.1 In this connection, it is argued that only avenue open for claiming the property to be asset of the Company under the winding up, in the facts of the present case is Section-531A of the Companies Act, 1956. However, as purchase made by the private respondents was much prior and before one year of the winding up proceedings, hence, also the applicant cannot call upon the Company Court to consider this plot of land as an asset of the Company under winding up. 7.2 It is submitted that the applicant had an option to assert his claim by way of resorting to remedy under the Civil Law or to join the winding up proceedings. As the applicant has not joined and has categorically denied to join winding up proceedings, now cannot be permitted to take U-turn and stake his claim as Secured Creditor to create an interest in the property in question. Particularly, when the applicant has also initiated proceedings for recovery before the appropriate forum. 7.3 It is submitted that the respondents are bonafide purchaser for value and when the transaction was entered into in the year 2014, they had undertaken due diligence and only after Title Clearance Certificate issued by the respective Attorneys that the applicant had entered into the Sale-deed and or Agreement to Sale with the Directors of the Erstwhile Company. Therefore, at the time of transaction, there was no cloud over the disposing capacity of the Company and hence also, the applicant cannot be permitted to now create cloud over the Title of the respondents. Therefore, at the time of transaction, there was no cloud over the disposing capacity of the Company and hence also, the applicant cannot be permitted to now create cloud over the Title of the respondents. 7.4 It is submitted that even if the claim of the applicant on the basis of Mortgage-deed is taken into consideration, then also, there is nothing on the Revenue Record to create any lien on the property and therefore, only Report from the Solicitor did not indicate of any lien over the property, when the respondents entered into transaction with Erstwhile Company. 7.5 Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has referred to the decision of Kerala High Court in case of K. N. Narayana Iyer v/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 436 in support of his argument that the effect of the winding up on certain antecedent transactions, are only three in nature, which are covered under Section-531 of the Companies Act, 1956 and particularly, Section- 531A, transfers within a period of one year before presentation of the petition for winding up, are only to be deemed as void against the liquidator. 7.6 It is submitted that in the facts of the present case, there is no other contingency, which would create cloud on the title of the respondents. 7.7 It is submitted that even if Section-531A is invoked, then also, it can be invoked, only where there is transaction, which is not done in good faith and in this connection, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Official Liquidator, Victor Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Kanhiya Lal and others reported in 1971 SCC ONLINE Del 179. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Arpit Singhvi for learned Advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar appearing for some of the respondents has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deven Parikh and in furtherance thereto. 9. Learned Advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala for the Official Liquidator; respondent No.1 has submitted that the claim as per the directions of the Company Court, the claim was invited from all the creditors. To which, the applicant has also filed his claim and therefore, the applicant has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Company Court and therefore, any proceedings are undertaken by the Company Court would be in any case, applicable to the applicant. To which, the applicant has also filed his claim and therefore, the applicant has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Company Court and therefore, any proceedings are undertaken by the Company Court would be in any case, applicable to the applicant. Therefore, there is no need for allowing Leave to Appeal as in any case, the claim of the applicant would be considered by the Official Liquidator in due course and the as per the provision of the Companies Act. 9.1 Learned Advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala has also drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 30-09-2022 passed in Company Application No. 18 of 2022 filed by the very applicant. It is submitted that the applicant had an option to choose between two remedies of which the applicant has already chosen his option and therefore, he cannot be considered as a necessary Party during the hearing of the Company Application, the order of which is sought to be challenged by the applicant. 10. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that even though the applicant may have staked his claim under the Civil Law, still it cannot be said that the applicant has no right, title or interest in the winding up proceedings. Therefore, when any property of the asset of Erstwhile Company is being dealt with, is required to be heard as a necessary party. Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. v/s. Haryana Concast Limited and another reported in 2016 (4) SCC 47 to contend that when the proceedings by the applicant were undertaken under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), knowledge of the same is eminent for the Official Liquidator and therefore, even when the Official Liquidator, who was under the notice of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, he has not preferred any Appeal by invoking Section-17 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the Official Liquidator was obliged to bring it to the notice of the Company Court. 10.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that though the Official Liquidator has referred to pursuing action under the SARFAESI Act to invoke mortgage right under the Mortgage-deed, Section-14 would hardly be efficacious remedy in wake of orders passed by the Company Court with regard to the property in question. 10.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has submitted that EVEN IF THE SUBMISSION OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION REGARDING OPTION AVAILABLE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SARFAESI ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE MORTGAGEDEED, UNDOUBTEDLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMPANY JUDGE WITH REGARD TO THE VERY SAME PROPERTY WOULD ACT AS AN OBSTACLE FOR THE APPLICANT AND THEREFORE, EVEN OTHERWISE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE AFFECTED. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that this group of applications is filed against the order of the Company Judge in various applications filed by the independent plot owners, who had entered into either Sale-deed or Agreement to Sale with the Erstwhile Directors of the Company now under liquidation with the main contention that this independent applicants had entered into documents, much prior to the initiation of the winding up proceedings. Though the orders have been passed on various dates in the respective applications of the private respondents and the challenge is made by the applicant, which is raising identical grounds and the case of the respondents is also identical, the group of applications were taken up for hearing jointly. However, it would be appropriate to give the basic details in Tabular Form for each case, which is as under: Sr. No. F/OJ Appeal no. and leave to appeal CA no. Party Name- Private respondent Name Bungalow No. Original Matter No. Date of Order Sale deed /Agreement to sale date 1 6498/2023 and 591/23 1. Rajesh Chandubhai Thakkar 2. Nikul Chaturbhai Patel 3. Sureshbhai Thakkar 4. Bhavesh Shivlal Akhani Sub Plot No.1 of Final Plot No.128/1 COMA No.11/22 16.03.22 30.01.14 2 6500/2023 and 592/23 1. Rajeshkumar Dahayabhai Patel 31 COMA No.20/22 07.10.22 25.04.14 3 6499/2023 and 593/23 Jitendrabhai Viutthalbhai Patel 33 COMA No.47/22 06.01.23 25.04.14 4 6501/2023 and 594/23 Ajay Rajendra Beri 18 COMA No.48/22 06.01.23 11.04.14 5 6502/2023 and 595/23 1. Hemantkumar Jayantilal Patel 2. Ashaben Hemantkumar Patel 34 COMA No.45/22 06.01.23 21.03.14 6 6503/2023 and 596/23 1. Pankajbai Revabhai patel 2. Rajeshkumar Dahayabhai Patel 31 COMA No.20/22 07.10.22 25.04.14 3 6499/2023 and 593/23 Jitendrabhai Viutthalbhai Patel 33 COMA No.47/22 06.01.23 25.04.14 4 6501/2023 and 594/23 Ajay Rajendra Beri 18 COMA No.48/22 06.01.23 11.04.14 5 6502/2023 and 595/23 1. Hemantkumar Jayantilal Patel 2. Ashaben Hemantkumar Patel 34 COMA No.45/22 06.01.23 21.03.14 6 6503/2023 and 596/23 1. Pankajbai Revabhai patel 2. Shilpaben Pankajkumar Patel 35 COMA No.43/22 06.01.23 25.04.14 7 6504/2023 and 597/23 1. Rajesh Chandubhai Thakkar 2. Sangitaben Rajeshbhai Thakkar 38 COMA No.87/17 24.01.22 13.01.14 8 6505/2023 and 598/23 Rajesh Chandubhai Thakkar 51 COMA No.85/17 24.01.22 09.01.14 9 6506/2023 and 599/23 Maganlal Hirabhai Vasoya 4 COMA No.51/18 24.01.22 10.01.14 10 6507/2023 and 600/23 Pankajbai Revabhai patel 47 COMA No.44/22 06.01.23 09.05.14 11 6508/2023 and 601/23 1. Mukeshkumar Sakadchand Patel 2. Kaushik Narendrakumar Patel 5/C COMA No.46/22 06.01.23 25.04.14 12 6509/2023 and 602/23 Shilpa Pankajkumar Patel 53 COMA No.50/22 06.01.23 11.04.14 13 6510/2023 and 603/23 1. Taraben Chandubhai Thakkar 2. Sangitaben Rajeshbhai Thakkar 52 COMA No.86/17 24.01.22 09.01.14 14 7644/2023 and 604/23 Brijesh Amrutbhai Patel 25 OJMCA No.2/20 05.08.22 13.05.14 15 7652/2023 and 605/23 Vishal Vishnubhai Patel 12 OJMCA No.2/20 05.08.22 03.05.14 16 7657/2023 and 606/23 Indravadan Dhayabhai Patel 11 OJMCA No.4/20 05.08.22 13.05.14 17 7658/2023 and 607/23 Nilesh Batukbhai Manseta 56 OJMCA No.8/20 05.08.22 29.05.14 18 7659/2023 and 608/23 Haresh Rasiklal Shah 55 OJMCA No.9/20 1 7.06.22 25.04.14 19 10100/2023 and 752/23 Subhashbhai Trikamlal Panchal 54 OJCA No.7/17 05.08.22 06.05.14 20 10321/202 3 and 753/23 Punamchand Chunilal Panchal 20 OJCA No.6/17 05.08.22 06.05.14 21 10089/202 3 and 754/23 Sunil Trikamlal Panchal 14 OJCA No.5/17 17.06.22 25.04.14 22 10227/202 3 and 755/23 Jagdishkumar Ambalal Patel 50 OJCA No.8/17 05.08.22 28.05.14 11.1 The facts which appear on record in chronology are that Religare Finvest Ltd. (Predecessor to the applicant) sanctioned loan facility to the tune of Rupees Twenty Five Crore in the year 2013, wherein towards the security, Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Company under winding up) executed registered Mortgage-deed on 22-08-2013 popularly known as Project ‘Shukan Palace-III’. The Mortgage-deed consisted of the description of the immovable property (land) is as under: “Survey No.118/1 ad-measuring 13557 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plot No.128 paiki ad-measuring 10845 Sq.Mtrs., Survey No.118/2 admeasuring 13658 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plot No.128 paiki admeasuring 10926 Sq.Mtrs., & Survey No.118/3 ad-measuring 13861 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plat No.128 paiki ad-measuring 11090 Sq.Mtrs. Total 32861 Sq. The Mortgage-deed consisted of the description of the immovable property (land) is as under: “Survey No.118/1 ad-measuring 13557 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plot No.128 paiki ad-measuring 10845 Sq.Mtrs., Survey No.118/2 admeasuring 13658 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plot No.128 paiki admeasuring 10926 Sq.Mtrs., & Survey No.118/3 ad-measuring 13861 Sq.Mtrs. being Final Plat No.128 paiki ad-measuring 11090 Sq.Mtrs. Total 32861 Sq. Mtrs., of Mouje Village Koba, Taluka Gandhinagar” 11.2 In the year 2014, account was declared as ‘NPA’ and thereafter, it appears that between 2014 to 2015, Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. executed Sale-deed in favour of various individuals, who are private respondents herein. 11.3 The case papers thus, referred to various Civil proceedings by the then Religare Finvest Ltd. However, for the present, the same may not be relevant to be referred to. 11.4 However, respondent No.2; Daga Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed Company Petition No.179 of 2015 against Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and by order dated 17-08-2015, the Company Court passed order appointing the provisional Official Liquidator, while admitting the petition; (I) By order dated 27-03-2019, Company Petition No.179 of 2015 was allowed and Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator being appointed to take necessary steps for winding up. (II) On 27-09-2021, the Assignment Agreement Deed was executed between Religare Finvest Ltd. and the present applicant, whereby debt was assigned in favour of the applicant and the applicant steps into shoes of the original creditor; Religare Finvest Ltd. On 07-10-2021, the Official Liquidator was intimated about the Debt Assignment Agreement. To which, the Official Liquidator had issued letter dated 22-10-2021 intimated that the Official Liquidator has not received any Official Communication from Erstwhile Religare Finvest Ltd. or any order of the High Court. Therefore, Religare Finvest Ltd. also issued e-mail to the Official Liquidator about the Debt Assignment Agreement and therefore, the applicant had issued letter on 17-11-2021 to the Official Liquidator intimating that in the e-mail dated 16-11-2021, Religare Finvest Ltd. had brought to the notice of the Official Liquidator existence of the Debt Assignment Agreement. However, Official Liquidator did not accede in absence of the order of the High Court and the name of the applicant was not substituted. There was change in the contents of the Assignment Agreement, to which, the Court is not concerned. (III) An Advertisement was published by the Official Liquidator on 11- 03-2022 inviting claims. However, Official Liquidator did not accede in absence of the order of the High Court and the name of the applicant was not substituted. There was change in the contents of the Assignment Agreement, to which, the Court is not concerned. (III) An Advertisement was published by the Official Liquidator on 11- 03-2022 inviting claims. To which, by letter dated 05-04-2022, the applicant wrote letter to Official Liquidator in the capacity of Secured Creditor, but opted to remain outside the winding-up proceedings. To which, the Official Liquidator had responded that the claim was not as per the format and therefore, the applicant had again lodged the claim on 19-04-2022. 11.5 On 22-04-2022, the applicant had initiated measures under the provisions of SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section-13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator in his reply dated 10-05-2022 intimated that the applicant is required to seek approval of the Company Court for substitution and without the order of the Company Court, the applicant would not be treated as creditor of Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Company under wound up). 11.6 It was made clear by the applicant that even if he remains outside the winding up, his claim was not relinquished by him and the notice under Section-13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued. To which, the Official Liquidator replied on 25-08-2022 to withdraw such notice. 11.7 The basic contention of the applicant therefore is when the order came to be passed in the respective applications filed by the individual plot holders and the order which came to be passed by the Company Judge in the respective applications, the same would pertain to plot of land, which was very much located within the land, which was mortgaged as a security towards financial facility much prior to execution of Sale-deed and obviously before winding up proceedings. Therefore, when such plot of land is dealt with, the applicant was already having vested interest in such plot of land and therefore, was required to be treated as necessary party. 11.8 For the sake of convenience by way of illustration only, the Court may refer to the Sale-deed in one of this matter, wherein the description of the property under Sale-deed dated 30-01-2014 between Erstwhile Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and four purchasers namely Nikul Chaturbhai Patel, Suresh Dhirajlal Thakkar, Rajesh Chandubhai Thakkar and Romil Rameshbhai Patel. 11.8 For the sake of convenience by way of illustration only, the Court may refer to the Sale-deed in one of this matter, wherein the description of the property under Sale-deed dated 30-01-2014 between Erstwhile Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and four purchasers namely Nikul Chaturbhai Patel, Suresh Dhirajlal Thakkar, Rajesh Chandubhai Thakkar and Romil Rameshbhai Patel. This registered Sale-deed contains description of the property, which reads as under: “Sale Deed for Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores only) of property bearing Sub-plot No.1 having non-agricultural land admeasuring 9455 Sq. Mts. together with construction admeasuring 270.26 Sq. Mts. standing thereon out of non-agricultural land admeasuring 29575 Sq. Mts. of Final Plot No.128/1 of T.P. Scheme No.2 allotted in lieu of Survey No.118/1, 118/2 and 118/3 of Village Moje: Koba of Taluka: Gandhinagar in the Sub-District of Gandhinagar and Registration District of Gandhinagar.” 11.9 In this document, the recital would contain that the land under Sale-deed is free of encumbrance. Other set of registered Sale-deed dated 25th April, 2014 was executed between Shukan Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Subhashbhai Trikamlal Panchal and Artiben Subhashbhai Panchal, which pertains to the property bearing description, which is as under: “Sale Deed for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) of land having open plot total admeasuring 299 Sq. Mts. bearing Plot Number / Bungalow Number 54 in the scheme known as ‘Shukan Palace’ situated on old tenured non-agricultural land bearing Subplot No.2 out of Final Plot No.128/1 of Draft T.P. Scheme No.2 (Koba-Kudasan) allotted in lieu of lands bearing Survey No.118/1, 118/2 and 118/3 of Village Moje: Koba of Taluka: Gandhinagar in the Sub-District of Gandhinagar and Registration District of Gandhinagar.” 11.10 In this document, Clause-35 would read as under: “35) The land total admeasuring 41076 Sq. Mts. bearing Survey No.118/1, 118/2 and 118/3 which is included in Draft T.P. Scheme No.2 (Koba-Kudasan) and allotted Final Plot No.128/1 and area of the final plot fixed to the extent of 32861 Sq. Mts. is owned by the seller and the seller has floated a scheme of residential bungalows with name ‘Shukan Palace’ on the said land and the seller has availed financial assistance from the Religare Finvest Limited and executed a Registered Mortgage Deed. Mts. is owned by the seller and the seller has floated a scheme of residential bungalows with name ‘Shukan Palace’ on the said land and the seller has availed financial assistance from the Religare Finvest Limited and executed a Registered Mortgage Deed. The properties already sold are mentioned therein and the said land is included in the properties of lands and properties mentioned therein and the seller has made the purchasers fully aware regarding the amount to be paid to the said company by the members whose land is not included in the sold properties and regarding the terms and conditions of the financial assistance and accordingly, the said entire land is common for the occupiers / plot holders. The land described in this sale deed is sold to you with the condition to pay the proportionate amount by the concerned person which is required to be paid to the said company. As the same is accepted and binding to you, this Sale Deed has been executed by the seller in favour of the purchaser subject to the said condition.” 11.11 The examination of the aforesaid documents, there is no doubt that the immovable property dealt with under the order, which the applicant seeks to challenge, is part of the property, which is by the Mortgage-deed mortgaged to the applicant. 11.12 The Court may also refer to the order passed on 30-09-2022 in the Company Application No. 18 of 2022 in Company Petition No.179 of 2015 filed by the present applicant, wherein this Court has allowed Company Application of the applicant and substituted the applicant in place of M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. 11.13 Though elaborate arguments were advanced on behalf of both the sides, but the same will have to be appreciated, when the Court takes up the Appeal filed by the applicant as all these arguments advanced by the respective parties are on merits, as to whether the challenge of the applicant in the Appeal against orders of the Company Court in the respective applications, can be sustained. 11.14 The Court having found that there is semblance of interest of the applicant in the immovable properties, which were dealt with by the Company Judge in the impugned orders and the fact that the Official Liquidator was aware of the claims of the applicant as also interest of the applicant in the very immovable property in question, in the opinion of the Court, the applicant has made out a case for grant of Leave to Appeal. 12. Accordingly, all the applications are allowed and Leave to Appeal in favour of the applicants against respective orders passed by the Company Judge is granted. 13. O.J. Appeals are directed to be listed on Admission Board on 09-09-2024.