Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Company Judge of this Court in Company Application No. 388 of 2009, whereby the learned Company Judge has directed the disbursement of the amount of Rs. 3.50 crore to Bank of Baroda and has further directed the Official Liquidator to take steps to get back of the amount paid earlier to Canara Bank as well as to IFCI Limited. 2. It is an undisputed position that there were three secured creditors on record namely; Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank and IFCI Limited. The said aspect is apparent from the report submitted by the OL, which has been referred to by the learned Company Judge in the impugned order. If the matter is considered in light of the earlier order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Application No. 219 of 2007 and allied matters, it is clear that all the three secured creditors had the claim over the property of the company, subject to, inter se, apportionment and the claims were found admissible by the OL. The relevant observations made in the said order dated 24.10.2007 of the learned Company Judge can be extracted as under:— “7. The other applicant, which is Canara Bank is alleged to have secured debt of approximately Rs. 3.93 crore, but it appears that Bank of Baroda is also one of the secured creditors and Ms. Brahmbhatt representing Bank of Baroda is unable to state before the Court the amount of outstanding as on the date of the winding up to be recovered by Bank of Baroda as the secured creditors, nor the Learned Counsel for OL is in a position to give details for such purpose. In any case, the workers’ claim is to be invited and to be considered and, therefore, the final disbursement cannot be made at this stage, as if the fund available is of Rs. 6.65 crore. However, reasonable amount can be considered for disbursement on adhoc basis, subject to the further report which may be moved by the OL as per the directions given hereinafter. 8. Hence, the following directions:— (a) OL shall disburse the amount of Rs. 6.65 crore. However, reasonable amount can be considered for disbursement on adhoc basis, subject to the further report which may be moved by the OL as per the directions given hereinafter. 8. Hence, the following directions:— (a) OL shall disburse the amount of Rs. 55 lac on adhoc basis to the applicant of Company Application No. 219 of 2007 on usual terms of filing undertaking to this Court to refund the amount in the event if it is so directed by this Court and a copy thereof is produced to the Office of the OL. (b) OL shall further disburse the amount of Rs. 1.5 crore on adhoc basis to the applicant of Company Application No. 355 of 2007 on usual terms of filing undertaking to this Court to refund the amount in the event if it is so directed by this Court and a copy thereof is produced to the Office of the OL. (c) The aforesaid disbursement shall be made within two weeks from the date of filing of the copy of the undertaking with the office of OL. (d) OL shall invite the claim of the workers by issuing necessary advertisement and if the claim is lodged of the workers, OL shall be at liberty to take assistance of a Chartered Accountant for verification of the admissible amount towards workers’ claim. (e) OL shall convene a meeting of the secured creditors including M/s.IFCI Limited for their views on the aspects of appreciation in the concerned property and shall procure material, if any, produced by such creditors. OL shall examine the same and if required, with the assistance of the Valuer, shall tentatively form an opinion for attributable appreciation to the concerned Lots No. A-1, A-2 and A-3, which have been sold for Rs. 6.65 crore as against the upset price of Rs. 2.63 crore. (f) After the aforesaid exercise is undertaken, OL shall come out with appropriate report for further disbursement in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.” 3. Therefore, as such while passing the impugned order, without considering the earlier order dated 24.10.2007 in Company Application No. 219 of 2007 and allied matters, the impugned order could not have been passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.” 3. Therefore, as such while passing the impugned order, without considering the earlier order dated 24.10.2007 in Company Application No. 219 of 2007 and allied matters, the impugned order could not have been passed. Further it was required for the learned Company Judge to hear the appellant herein as well as Canara Bank for two fold purpose, one was that at the time when the disbursement was to take place, whether the other secured creditors namely; the appellant and Canara Bank had any say in the matter or not and the another was that before making any observations on the aspect as to whether any amount has been paid in excess or not and before giving directions to the OL to take steps for getting back of the amount, the concerned secured creditors namely; the appellant herein and IFCI Limited as well as another secured creditor Canara Bank were required to be heard. 4. If the matter is examined in light of the observance of the principles of natural justice in strict sense, the whole order of the learned Company Judge may fall to ground, since the appellant herein and the other secured creditor namely; Canara Bank were not heard before passing the impugned order. It is true that Canara Bank has not preferred any appeal against the order of the learned Company Judge, but the appellant herein, who was also another secured creditor, though was required to be heard was not heard. As observed earlier, if the matter is examined only in light of the observance of the principles of the natural justice, the order may have to be set aside in toto. But at the same time, it does appear that it is not a matter where the original applicant Bank of Baroda had not to receive any amount. The earlier order dated 24.10.2007 as well as the report submitted by the OL, which has been considered by the learned Company Judge in the impugned order also shows that the respondent Bank of Baroda had a claim and as per the report of the Chartered Accountant, the claim of Bank of Baroda was found admissible of Rs. 6,37,07,000/-, out of which the learned Company Judge has permitted the disbursement of only Rs. 3.50 crore. 6,37,07,000/-, out of which the learned Company Judge has permitted the disbursement of only Rs. 3.50 crore. If the matter is considered in light of the prejudice suffered by the applicant, it cannot be said that by ordering the disbursement of Rs. 3.50 crore to the Bank of Baroda, the appellant herein has suffered any prejudice. However, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is right in submitting that the observation made by the learned Company Judge in the impugned order to the extent of directing the OL to take steps to get back the amount from Canara Bank as well as IFCI Limited can be said as prejudicial to the interest of the appellant herein and of course, Canara Bank too. 5. It is by now well settled that even if a complaint of breach of principles of natural justice is brought to the notice of this Court, while exercising the power under the jurisdiction vests to this Court, the Court may consider the question of prejudice caused to the complainant party and may exercise the power to that extent. Hence, we find that instead of setting aside of the whole order of the learned Company Judge on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, we may consider the question of the subject matter of the appeal to the extent the order of the learned Company Judge is prejudicial to the appellant herein and the same aspect may arise for Canara Bank too, who has not filed the appeal before this Court, but the fact remains that the said Bank was also not heard before the order was passed by the learned Company Judge. 6. As regards the disbursement to the respondent bank of Baroda of Rs. 6. As regards the disbursement to the respondent bank of Baroda of Rs. 3.50 crore by the impugned order of the learned Company Judge, the same may not be required to be ordered to be refunded or recovered for the present, but as it has been stated by the Learned Counsel appearing for both the sides that the further disbursement is to take place, since the applications have been moved to the learned Company Judge and they are pending before the learned Company Judge, the only observation deserves to be made is that when the learned Company Judge considers the question for further disbursement of the money of the company in liquidation amongst the secured creditors or the workers, as the case may be, the amount as already recovered by the respondent Bank of Baroda of Rs. 3.50 crore pursuant to the impugned order shall be taken into consideration and the impugned order shall not be read as conclusive disbursement of the amount of Rs. 3.50 crore to Bank of Baroda, but shall be subject to the further disbursement and/or direction for refund as the learned Company Judge may decide, in the appropriate proceedings of the company application for further or future disbursement of the amount to any party whose claim is to be considered while making disbursement of the amount available of the company in liquidation. 7. We may record that as such when any party to the proceedings moves any appropriate application by way of Judge’s summons, invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Company Judge, though the Court may in a given case exercise the power for directing the all other necessary parties to be impleaded, but the basic duty is of the applicant, who invokes the jurisdiction of the learned Company Judge to implead the parties, who are to be affected by the order, which is prayed in the application. As observed earlier, we find that the order for disbursement of any amount could not have been prayed without joining all secured creditors as parties to the proceedings. Therefore, it is on account of the lapse on the part of the respondent Bank of Baroda, who did not join the appellant herein as parties to the proceedings, and the same has given rise to the present litigation. Therefore, it is on account of the lapse on the part of the respondent Bank of Baroda, who did not join the appellant herein as parties to the proceedings, and the same has given rise to the present litigation. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the respondent Bank of Baroda cannot get away from the liability to pay the cost by way of compensation for such default as well as of the litigation to the appellant herein. Considering the facts and circumstances we find that the total amount for the aforesaid would be of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be required to be paid by the respondent Bank of Baroda - the original applicant before the learned Company Judge to the appellant herein within a period of one month from today. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned Company Judge is quashed and set aside and so far as it relates to directing the OL to take steps to get the amount back, which is found to be paid in excess to the Canara Bank as well as to IFCI. However, so far as the other part of the order of the learned Company Judge for making the disbursement of Rs. 3.50 crore to the original applicant, Bank of Baroda is concerned, as observed earlier by us in the present order, the same shall be subject to further orders, which may be passed for disbursement in the proceedings pending before the learned Company Judge and the impugned order of disbursement shall not be read as conclusive disbursement in favour of the Bank of Baroda for Rs. 3.50 crore. Respondent Bank of Baroda shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant as aforesaid. 9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P