JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present report has been submitted by the Official Liquidator seeking disbursement of the amount of Rs. 2,18,54,173/- to Bank of Baroda and Rs. 53,80,667/- to ICICI Bank and it is further prayed to permit the Official Liquidator to disburse the amount of Rs. 77,65,160/- to the workmen. Official Liquidator has also prayed to permit payment of the bill of the Chartered Accountant. 2. Heard Mr. Modi for the Official Liquidator, Mr. Sinha for respondent No. 1, Ms. Lodha for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Mehd for respondent No. 3. 3. It appears that earlier the order was passed by this Court for adhoc disbursement of Rs. 1 crore to the workers but so far as the secured creditors are concerned, as their claims were yet to be verified no order for disbursement was passed. It has been stated on behalf of the Official Liquidator that at present the available fund is Rs. 4.16 crores plus the amount of Rs. 5 lac. Therefore, taking in to consideration the said aspect the amount of Rs. 4 crore can be spared towards the claim of the secured creditors and the workers' claim and at the time when Official Liquidator has to disburse the amount to the workers, the adjustment/set off will have to be made of the amount already disbursed pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court for disbursement on adhoc basis. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent No. 2 bank that the verification of the claim by the Chartered Accountant of the secured creditors is not correct in as much as it was submitted that the Bank of Baroda is entitled to claim the amount as per the decree of the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short) and the Chartered Accountant cannot reduce the amount than as ordered by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that so far as respondent No. 3-ICICI Bank is concerned, though the interest awarded by the Tribunal in the decree is 6% per annum, the Chartered Accountant has considered higher rate of interest and therefore such an approach on the part of the Chartered Accountant is not correct and in any case Official Liquidator ought not to have acted upon such report. It has also been submitted that the birth-date of 167 workers were to be re-verified and the claim of such workers was also to be reverified by the Chartered Accountant, as per the direction issued by this Court earlier. In spite of the same, the Official Liquidator has not supplied the documents nor Official Liquidator has insisted for re-verification of the claim and therefore the final ratio as worked out by the Chartered Accountant without re-verification may not be acted upon or the disbursement may not be made. Therefore it was submitted that until there is re-verification of all the claims of the secured creditors as well as of the workers as directed by this Court earlier, no disbursement whatsoever may be permitted. 5. Whereas, on behalf of respondent No. 3-ICICI Bank, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the bank should be entitled to the contractual rate of interest and not the interest as awarded by the Tribunal in the decree. He submitted that in any case there is inter se agreement between the respondent No. 2 bank and respondent No. 3 bank for sharing the realised amount on the basis of the principal amount to be worked out proportionately and therefore no more amounts may be disbursed to respondent No. 2 bank just because it is having a decree in its favour. It was submitted that the agreement of joint consortium was entered into at the time when the finance was provided by both the banks to the company in liquidation. Therefore, that agreement is having inter se binding effect between both the bankers and the respondent No. 2 bank may not be allowed to back out just because at the later stage the decree is in its favour of a higher amount. Therefore, it was submitted that the disbursement may be ordered in proportion to the principal amount outstanding on the date of the winding up and not as per the decree of the Tribunal. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the workers by the learned counsel that in the report of the Chartered Accountant, the aspects of verification of the claim based on the birth-date has been taken into consideration and the Chartered Accountant has also stated that even if such aspect is taken into consideration, at the most, there may be difference of about Rs. 3.04 lacs only i.e. 1.86% and therefore that amount, at the most, may be excluded from the claim of the workers and for the purpose of disbursement the remaining amount may be taken into consideration by this Court and the disbursement may be permitted. 7. It was also submitted by Mr. Sinha for the workers that about 12 workers whose names are mentioned at Annexure-Y at page 87 could not get the amount since they were out of town and therefore Official Liquidator may be directed to disburse the said amount to such workers also. 8. It does appear that for the purpose of arriving at the ratio under Section 529A of the Act, the Chartered Accountant is to be guided by the decree if passed by the competent forum prior to the date of winding up. If the decree is not passed up to the date of winding up and the matter is pending, before the competent forum, it may stand on different footing. In absence of any appropriate adjudication by the competent forum, it may be that the Chartered Accountant may be guided by the contractual rate of interest for calculating the amount of claim of the secured creditors but after the competent forum has made any declaration on the aspects of charging of interest or entitlement of the interest by the secured creditors, the same is required to be taken into consideration. 9. It appears that in the present report of the Chartered Accountant, the said aspect has not been considered. The claim of the Bank of Baroda based on the decree is stated to be of Rs. 9,05,37,199. As against the same, the Chartered Accountant has assessed the claim of Bank of Baroda at Rs. 691.14 lacs. The aforesaid appears to be an erroneous approach for arriving at the claim of the secured creditors in a case where there is already a decree passed in favour of the secured creditors prior to the date of winding up. Therefore, the Chartered Accountant will be required to take into consideration the said aspect while considering the matter again as per the order as may be passed hereinafter. 10. Therefore, the Chartered Accountant will be required to take into consideration the said aspect while considering the matter again as per the order as may be passed hereinafter. 10. Such will also be the situation even in respect of the claim of the respondent No. 3 bank in as much as if the DRT has awarded the interest @ 6% in place of the contractual interest and no appeal is preferred by the respondent No. 3 bank against the said decision of the DRT or the same is not modified by any higher forum, the Chartered Accountant has to take into consideration the said aspects of awarding of interest @ 6% only. In these circumstances the interest as calculated by the Chartered Accountant on the contractual rate of interest is erroneous. Therefore, it will be for the Chartered Accountant to re-calculate the interest as per the decree of the DRT wherein the interest is awarded @ 6% per annum. It has been stated that if the amount of interest is calculated @ 6% per annum such amount of ICICI Bank may be of Rs. 1,75,90,150/-, whereas, Chartered Accountant has assessed at Rs. 193.32 lacs plus 154.42 lacs, total Rs. 347.74 lacs. Therefore, it will be for the Chartered Accountant to consider the matter once again for calculation of the claim admissible for ICICI Bank. 11. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the ICICI Bank that if there was agreement in existence for joint finance by both the bankers to share the amount as may be realised based on the principal amount, the amount so realised is required to be disbursed accordingly. However, it appears that Bank of Baroda is not agreeable for such aspect on the ground that there is a decree of Debts Recovery Tribunal in its favour for much higher amount in comparison to the decree in favour of the ICICI Bank and therefore it was submitted that the disbursement is required to be considered based on the amount admissible as per the decree of the DRT and not as per the agreement which was made at the time of joint finance. As such, so far as the Official Liquidator is concerned, while calculating the amount under Section 529A of the Act, the total claim as per the decree of the Tribunal is required to be considered as against the claim of the workers for working out the ratio of distribution. However, so far as the disbursement to the individual secured creditors, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, as such essentially is an internal matter between both of them. If the respondent No. 3 bank is to assert the right for distribution of the amount which goes to the secured creditors on the basis of the agreement, it will be for respondent No. 3 bank to resort to an appropriate proceeding and to get declaration based on such agreement and until such declaration is made which may result into restricting the rights of respondent No. 2 bank for recovery of the amount to that extent as per the agreement only, the direction cannot be issued for disbursement based on the agreement as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. At the same time, if the amount is already disbursed by this Court as per the decree of the Tribunal and if at the later stage the agreement is pressed into service by the respondent No. 3 bank against the respondent No. 2 bank, there may be the question of recalling back of the said amount. Therefore, if the respondent No. 3 is desirous, may resort to the appropriate proceedings, failing which the Official Liquidator will be required to disburse the amount and therefore till then the amount will be retained by the Official Liquidator falling at the share of the secured creditors. 12. As regards the verification of the birth-date of the workers are concerned, the Chartered Accountant has observed in the report that there may be difference of about 1.86% and in value it would be Rs. 3.04 lac. Therefore, until the reverification takes place, the matter can be considered for disbursement by excluding the amount of Rs. 3.04 lac from the total claim of the workers. 3.04 lac. Therefore, until the reverification takes place, the matter can be considered for disbursement by excluding the amount of Rs. 3.04 lac from the total claim of the workers. It further appears that until the aspects of total claim of the secured creditor is worked out by the Chartered Accountant in light of the observations made herein above, it may not be possible for this Court to arrive at a final figure for entitlement of the workers in their share and therefore even if the matter is to be considered it can at the most be considered for adhoc disbursement. It appears that earlier the disbursement has already taken place of Rs. 1 crore and therefore with a view to avoid further complication of the recalling of the amount from the workers, within time bound programme, the Chartered Accountant may be directed to re-calculate the amount and the disbursement may be ordered thereafter. 13. The amount of security expenses and advertisement charges as stated in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the Bank of Baroda of Rs. 6,11,205/-, subject to the verification of the Official Liquidator, is in any case in the process of the winding up and therefore the same can be reimbursed. Further if earlier 12 workers whose names are mentioned at Annexure-Y could not get disbursement of their share as per order passed earlier for adhoc disbursement, Official Liquidator will be required to make payment. 14. In view of the above the following order: (1) The Official Liquidator shall refer the matter to Chartered Accountant for reconsider the matter in light of the observations made herein above in respect to the claim of both the secured creditors. The aforesaid report shall be received by the Official Liquidator preferably within period of one month. (2) The amount of workers' claim shall remain the same minus the amount of Rs. 3.04 lac as mentioned by the Chartered Accountant. (3) The ratio shall be worked out by the Chartered Accountant. (4) After the report of the Chartered Accountant, Official Liquidator shall retain the amount falling in the share of the secured creditors for a period of three months and within that period, if the respondent No. 3 bank is so advised, for getting the share based on the agreement of joint finance, it may resort to an appropriate proceeding as may be permissible in law. In the event any order is passed by any competent forum, the right of the parties shall operate accordingly. (5) After the receipt of the report of the Chartered Accountant, Official Liquidator shall come out with appropriate report for disbursement of the amount to the workers preferably within period of two weeks thereafter. (6) Official Liquidator shall disburse the amount to the workmen whose names are mentioned at Annexure-Y, which could not be received by them though ordered earlier by this Court. (7) The bill of the Chartered Accountant shall be settled after the aforesaid process of re-calculation of the amount is completed. Official Liquidator shall move the appropriate report or in alternative Official Liquidator shall be at the liberty to settle the bill of the Chartered Accountant as per the scheme framed for settlement of the fees of the Chartered Accountant, but after the further report received. (8) The Official Liquidator shall reimburse the amount of Rs. 6.11,205/- to the Bank of Baroda upon the production of proof by Bank of Baroda for expenses incurred towards securities. After the proof is produced the amount shall be disbursed within two weeks. 15. O.L.R. disposed of accordingly. Order Accordingly.