right, title and ownership over the schedule property, and declare the sale notice as illegal and arbitrary; and to grant stay of auction of the property covered by the notification dated 02.08.2005. In its order dated 06.06.2007, this Court held that the vendors had effected the transactions with the fraudulent intention of delaying proceedings; in the light of the said conduct of the vendors, the applicants’ claim to be bonafide purchasers could not be accepted, more so as they did not adduce any evidence; even otherwise, as the vendors did not have title to transfer the property, the transfer deeds executed by them were invalid and had no legal sanctity; the applicants were debarred from making any claim against the properties, as the vendor companies had no title over the property of the “Company”; the vendor companies had no right to effect transfers; and the transfers, if any, effected were illegal and unsustainable. All the applications filed by the claimants, including Sri L. Purushotham Naidu and Sri B. Bipin, were dismissed and C.A. Nos.1127 of 2005 and 746 of 2007 were ordered directing fresh auction to be conducted. Against the order passed in C.A. No.715 of 2007 and batch, OSA. No.31 of 2007 and batch were preferred. The Division bench, in its order dated 07.08.2009, held that the appellants had set up a claim only through the companies whose claim had already been negatived; and, hence, there could not be any question of an enforceable claim. The Division bench found no merit and, accordingly, dismissed the said appeals. Against the order passed in OSA No.31 of 2007 and batch dated 07.08.2009, SLP(C) No.29693 of 2009 and batch were filed before the Supreme Court. Among the Special Leave Petitions in this batch included SLP (C) No.29888 of 2009 filed by Sri B. Bipin and SLP(c) No.30322 of 2009 filed by Sri L. Purushotham Naidu. All the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 07.01.2010.
