JUDGMENT K. M. THAKER, J. 1. IT was way back in 2001 that the Union representing the workmen of the Company in liquidation had taken out Judge's Summons which was registered as Company Application No.203 of 2001 wherein below mentioned relief/s were prayed for :- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Official Liquidator to invite offers by inserting advertisement in such newspapers as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for sale of the properties of Maharana Mills Limited (in liquidation) either by outright sale and/or submitting a scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 or in the alternative offers for scrapping the Mill Company or in such manner as this Hon'ble Court may decide. (b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to approve with or without, the draft advertisement for sale and also the draft terms and conditions of sale annexed with the affidavit in support of this Summons." 2. THE State Bank of Saurashtra, which, now, after merger, is the State Bank of India i.e. present respondent, was one of the respondents in the said application. During the proceedings which ensued, respondent No.2 Bank had participated in that proceeding and was heard. 3. DURING the pendency of the said application, the Official Liquidator had filed a report dated 29th September 2005, wherein it was mentioned in para 1 of the report that :- "That, this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 02.11.2004 and 25.04.2005 was please to permit the Official Liquidator to appoint a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of verification of workers claim lodged by the applicant Union. That, accordingly M/s.C.Joshi and Co., Chartered Accountant, Porbandar, were appointed by the Official Liquidator to verify the workers claim and to submit a verification report. The said Chartered Accountant, after verification of the workers claim with reference to the original records of the Company, have submitted their\verification report vide letter dated 01.08.2005." "The report also declared in the said report of 2005 that the Chartered Accountant had carried out verification of the workers' claim and according to the verification report, it was found that the claim of the workers as admissible under Section 529A of the Companies Act was to the tune of Rs. 44,10,44,272/ It appears from the contents of para 2 of the said report that the Chartered Accountant had taken into consideration the decision of the Court in case of Jubilee Mills while determining admissible claim of the workers and then observed that out of the admissible claim of Rs.44,10,44,272/-, the claim for the purpose of Section 529A of the Companies Act would be to the tune of Rs.35,09,55,245/-, comprising Rs.25, 38,15, 260/- towards the salary, Rs.4, 77, 28, 244/- towards the gratuity and Rs.4, 94,11, 741/- towards retrenchment compensation. However, claim totaling to the tune of Rs.5,46,55,820/-, comprising the claim towards privilege leave, bonus and notice pay would be "ordinary claims" and not for the purpose of Section 529A of the Act i.e. to rank at par with secured creditors. It appears that the said OLR giving the aforesaid details which was filed in Company Application No.203 of 2001 was served on all respondents including State Bank of Saurashtra." From the record of the said Company Application No.203 of 2001 any objections or any affidavit disputing the said report was not filed though at initial stage an affidavit dated 29th July 2002 was filed by the bank opposing the application. 4. AFTER the above referred report dated 29th September 2005, the Official Liquidator had filed another report dated 30th August 2005 in the said proceedings, wherein the Official Liquidator dealt with the dispute of one M/s. Shree Jagdish Oil Industries Ltd., who claimed to be the tenant of some part of the property of Company in liquidation. Subsequently, another report dated 23rd January 2006 came to be filed by the Official Liquidator in the said Company Application No.203 of 2001 wherein the Official Liquidator stated, inter alia, in para 1 as under :- "That, this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 10.01.2006 directed the Official Liquidator to checkup and verify the calculations given in Official Liquidator's Report dated 30.09.2005 and to submit a correct report regarding admissible claim of workers of the Company. That, in this connection the Official Liquidator most respectfully submits that the calculations given in Official Liquidator's Report dated 30.09.2005 have been checked and verified with reference to the report of the Chartered Accountant. That, the correct position of the workers' claim is as mentioned in hereinafter in this report." 5. That, in this connection the Official Liquidator most respectfully submits that the calculations given in Official Liquidator's Report dated 30.09.2005 have been checked and verified with reference to the report of the Chartered Accountant. That, the correct position of the workers' claim is as mentioned in hereinafter in this report." 5. IN the said report the Official Liquidator stated that the claim raised on behalf of 2906 workers was placed before the Chartered Accountant for verification and after verification it was reported that the claim admissible for the purpose of Section 529A of the Companies Act would come to Rs.34, 85, 47, 106/-, whereas, the claim to the tune of Rs.5,47,50,284/- would not be admissible for the purpose of Section 529A which would qualify as ordinary or other claims. The certificate of the Chartered Accountant to the aforesaid effect was part of the said OLR dated 23.01.2006 and it appears that copy of the said OLR was served on all respondents including the respondent State Bank of Saurashtra. However, the said respondent Bank do not appear to have filed any affidavit at that stage in the said Company Application No.203 of 2001 disputing the details mentioned in the above referred reports by the Official Liquidator, with regard to the claims of the workers. According to the said report dated 23.01.2006, the admissible claim of workers which was found to the tune of Rs.34,85,47,106/-, comprising Rs.25,39,94,404/- towards the salary, Rs.4,80,29,563/- towards gratuity and Rs.4,65,23,139/- towards retrenchment compensation. As noted hereinabove, any affidavit by any of the secured creditors against the aforesaid details does not appear to have been filed at the relevant time on the record of the said Company Application No.203 of 2001. 6. ULTIMATELY, by order dated 3rd October, 2007, the said Company Application, along with another Company Application No.41 of 2002 was disposed of. While disposing the Company Application No.203 of 2001, wherein the above referred reports were filed by the Official Liquidator, the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel) observed inter alia in para 4 that :- "The only direction can be issued at this stage would be that the Official Liquidator shall consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit and for the disputed claim, the matter shall be considered by the Official Liquidator and the same shall be finalized by this Court at the time when the disbursement is ordered." 7. THUS, it was as back as in October 2007, and after prolongation of the hearing of the said Company Application No.203 of 2001 for about 6 years that the Court had, at the relevant time directed, as regards admissible limit, that, "Official Liquidator shall consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit." whereas, with regard to the disputed claim the Court had observed that, "The matter shall be considered by the Official Liquidator and the same shall be finalized by the Court at the time when the disbursement is to be ordered." 8. IT does not emerge from the record that the said order dated 3rd October 2007 was carried in appeal by any of the respondents, much less by any secured creditors including the respondent State Bank of Saurashtra. Mr. Vasavada, learned Advocate appearing for the workers has submitted that the said order has not been carried in appeal. Thus, the said order has attained finality after four years since it was passed. 9. EVEN at the cost of repetition it is necessary to again record, particularly in view of the objection (against disbursement) now being raised by the respondent Bank that at the relevant time any affidavit objecting the contents of the report filed by the Official Liquidator does not appear to have been filed by the respondent bank in respect of OLR dated 29.09.2005 and/or OLR dated 23.01.2006. 10. THE details mentioned in the said report have remained uncontroverted and undisputed. By the former reports it was submitted by the Official Liquidator that the admissible limit of the claim of workers, for the purpose of Section 529A of the Act was Rs.35,09,55,245/- and then in the later report i.e. OLR dated 23.01.2006 the said figure was revised to Rs.34,85,47,106/-. The said details were never disputed and during the interregnum of five years i.e. from January 2006 to July 2011, the respondent Bank does not appear to have responded, in any manner, as regards the said details and does not appear to have disputed the said details. 11. IT is also necessary to mention at the cost of repetition that the order dated 03.10.2007 which directed the Official Liquidator to consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit, has also not been challenged. 12. 11. IT is also necessary to mention at the cost of repetition that the order dated 03.10.2007 which directed the Official Liquidator to consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit, has also not been challenged. 12. BEFORE proceeding further, it is relevant to note that in respect of the Company, now in liquidation, the order of winding up was passed way back in 1989 and 22 years have rolled by since the winding up order was passed and yet the workers have not been paid even a rupee, until now. More than three and half years have passed since the order dated 03.10.2007 came to be passed by the Court directing the Official Liquidator to consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit and it was five years back that the admissible limit of the claim was placed on record by the Official Liquidator. 13. SINCE despite the aforesaid facts any payment was not made to the workers and a sum of about Rs.13 crores was realized, in the interregnum by way of sale of assets, and since despite such realization of the amount any amount to the workers was not paid, the Union representing the workers came out with fresh application i.e. present application being Company Application No. 310 of 2011 seeking below mentioned prayers :- "(A) To please direct the Official Liquidator to work out the ratio as per Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 as per the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court in judgment dated 12.05.1999 in Company Application No.360 of 1988 in the case of Textile Labour Association v. O.L. of Jubilee Mills Ltd. (In liquidation). (B) To please direct the Official Liquidator to disburse an amount of Rs.37, 59, 75, 625/- to 2,908 workmen of Maharana Mills Ltd. (In liquidation); (C) To please further direct the Official Liquidator to pay the further amount of Rs.12,37,34,032/- towards provident fund and interest thereon up to the date of winding up order inclusive of post closure interest at simple rate of 9.5% as contained in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;" 14. FROM the relief claimed by the workers by way of relief clause No.(C) it appears that in the claims considered by the Chartered Accountant in 2006, the claim towards Provident fund was not taken into consideration and therefore the workers have now claimed, in addition to the other claim, further amount towards P.F. as well. It is submitted that in view of the subsequent decisions including the decision of the Apex Court holding that amount towards P.F. also can be claimed, that the new claim is raised for consideration. By order dated 4th May 2011, Notice to the respondents was issued in present Company Application. It is claimed that in July 2010 sale of certain assets was confirmed and somewhere in December 2010 the Official Liquidator has received a sum of about 10 crore from sale of assets. Prior to that, a sum of Rs.2.70 crore was realized somewhere in 2009 by selling one of the immovable properties. 15. IN response to present application, the Official Liquidator filed report dated 11th May 2011 stating, inter alia, as under :- 2) That, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.08.2009 passed in Official Liquidator Report No.70 of 2005, permitted the Official Liquidator to sell all the properties of the said Company under Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 272 and 273 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 by an advertisement in the Newspapers fixing the upset price, EMD as directed by Hon'ble Court vide aforesaid order. 3) That, after following due procedure for sale of assets of the Company, the Official Liquidator has sold Villa/Guest House of the Company situated at Porbandar for Rs.2.70 crores in favour of M/s. Delite Enterprise vide order dated 12.01.2009 passed in Official Liquidator's Report No.266 of 2007 by this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the Official Liquidator has sold Lot Nos. D, E and F i.e. Civil Structure, Plant and Machineries and Furniture and Fixtures respectively of the said Company situated at its Mills premises at Porbandar for Rs. 10.50 Crores in favour of M/s. Chechani Trading Company vide order dated 09.07.2010 passed in Official Liquidator's Report No.155 of 2009 by this Hon'ble Court. 4) That......... 5) That, upon receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.10.50 crores of Lot Nos. D, E and F i.e. Civil Structure, Plant and Machineries and Furniture and Fixtures respectively from M/s. Chechani Trading Company the possession of aforesaid Lot Nos. 4) That......... 5) That, upon receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.10.50 crores of Lot Nos. D, E and F i.e. Civil Structure, Plant and Machineries and Furniture and Fixtures respectively from M/s. Chechani Trading Company the possession of aforesaid Lot Nos. D, E and F i.e. Civil Structure, Plant and Machineries and Furniture and Fixtures respectively were handed over to the authorized representative of aforesaid auction purchaser." 16. AS per the report, the claims made by the secured creditors are as mentioned below :- (1) State Bank of India Rs.5, 73,99, 210/-. (2) IDBI Bank Ltd. Rs. 4,44, 77, 730/-. (3) Central Bank of India Rs. 1,08,58,012/-. As per the said report, the claim of the workers is shown to the tune of Rs.37,59,75,624/-. Whereas, the total sum of all the aforesaid three secured creditors would come to about Rs.11, 27, 44, 952/-. Thus, the claim of workers is 3 times more than that of the entire claim of all 3 secured creditors put together. 17. THERE prima facie appears to be some variation in the figure mentioned by the Chartered Accountant as admissible claim for the purpose of Section 529, inasmuch as in report dated 23rd January 2006, which reflected the figure to be Rs.34, 85, 47,106/-, while present report shows the figure to be Rs. 37,59,75,624/-. An explanation is sought to be tendered by learned Advocate for the workers in this count, however, at this stage it is not considered. 18. EVEN if the lowest figure out of the different figures with regard to workers' claim is taken into account i.e. Rs.34, 85, 47, 106/- and the total claim amount of secured creditors is rounded up to the nearest higher amount, then the position which would emerge is that the workers' claim admissible within eligible limit of Section 529A, prima facie and on ad hoc assessment, would come to Rs.34.85 crore while entire claim of all the secured creditors put together would come to about Rs.12 crores. It is in this backdrop that on behalf of the workers request for ad hoc disbursement is made by the Union, which admits disbursement in favour of the secured creditors as well. 19. It is in this backdrop that on behalf of the workers request for ad hoc disbursement is made by the Union, which admits disbursement in favour of the secured creditors as well. 19. THE learned Counsel for IDBI Bank and Central Bank of India have stipulated that if ad hoc disbursement, keeping in focus their claim amounts, is made without prejudice to the contentions and subject to the determination of final ratio for disbursement, then the said secured creditors do not have any objection against such ad hoc disbursement out of the amount presently available with the Official Liquidator. 20. SO far as State Bank of India is concerned, it is substituted in place of the original respondent State Bank of Saurashtra. The respondent State Bank of India has raised objection against request for such ad hoc disbursement. Considering the submissions on behalf of the State Bank of India, earlier order dated 7th July 2011 was passed wherein it was inter alia directed as under :- "(i) The office of Official Liquidator shall supply copies of Chartered Accountant's Report and Official Liquidator's Report dated 11.05.2011 to the applicant Union and the secured creditors by 8th July 2011. Simultaneously, the Chartered Accountant, who has submitted the report on the basis of which the details of eligible claims are made in the report dated 11.05.2011 of Official Liquidator, may be requested to submit his report with regard to tentative ratio for disbursement on the basis of the report already submitted by him. The Chartered Accountant may be requested to submit such report by 13th July 2011. It is clarified that the ratio which may be suggested by the Chartered Accountant would be absolutely ad hoc and tentative, subject to objections which may be received from the side of secured creditors as well as workmen, and it would be only for the purpose of facilitating the ad hoc disbursement out of the amount presently in the hands of Official Liquidator. Orders regarding ad hoc disbursement will be passed on 14th July 2011. Orders regarding ad hoc disbursement will be passed on 14th July 2011. (ii) It is clarified that in the event the Chartered Accountant's Report with regard to tentative ratio for disbursement is delayed/not received by 13th July 2011, it would be open to the workmen and the secured creditors to decide, on ad hoc basis, tentative ratio for disbursement of the aforesaid amount and it would be open to Official Liquidator to convene such meeting in case of need and submit the recommended ratio on the next date of hearing. " After the said order, the Official Liquidator filed another report dated 20th July 2011 and stated as follows :- "1) That, the Official Liquidator most respectfully submits that pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court directed the Official Liquidator to convene such meeting in the case of need and submit the recommended ratio. In this connection, the Official Liquidator has engaged M/ s. Vibhakar J. Trivedi and Co., Chartered Accountant for fixing the ratio of secured creditors and workers of the Company and the Official Liquidator has held a meeting on 09.07.2011 of secured creditors and workers of the Company in which it was decided that the complete set of claim papers alongwith supporting documents will be provided by each secured creditors by today evening i.e.09.07.2011 to the said Chartered Accountant to arrive at ad hoc disbursement ratio and the said Chartered Accountant will give his report by 13.07.2011.A copy of minutes dated 09.07.2011 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A " 21. IT transpires that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2011, the Official Liquidator convened the meeting on 9th July 2011, which as per the minutes of the meeting, was attended by all secured creditors including respondent State Bank of India. 22. IN the said minutes dated 09.07.2011, it is inter alia recorded that :- "pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order dated 07.07.2011, passed in the matter, the representative of workers and secured creditors are present. 22. IN the said minutes dated 09.07.2011, it is inter alia recorded that :- "pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order dated 07.07.2011, passed in the matter, the representative of workers and secured creditors are present. The Chartered Accountant M/s. C. Joshi and Company, Porbandar, who has carried out verification of workers' claim, was approved............." On behalf of Official Liquidator, the learned Counsel has submitted that the said minutes of meeting was forwarded to all secured creditors and until now any objection with regard to the contents of the said minutes has not been raised by any of the secured creditors including respondent State Bank of India. 23. THE learned Counsel for OL has submitted that she herself was present in the meeting and the minutes were dictated in presence of all persons mentioned in the preamble of the minutes. At that time also any objection with regard to the record of the meeting reflected in the minutes and the contents of the minutes was not raised. 24. AS noted above, after the meeting dated 09.07.2011, the Official Liquidator filed report dated 20th July 2011 and its annexures contain the minutes of the meeting and also the copy of the report of the Chartered Accountant which is dated 13th July 2011. AS per the said report, the Chartered Accountant has taken into account the workers' claim to the tune of Rs.37,59,75,624/- and suggested ad hoc ratio for the purpose of ad hoc disbursement at this stage. A copy of the said report along with its aforesaid annexures which included report of the C.A. was served on all the secured creditors including the respondent State Bank of India, who has subsequently filed an affidavit dated 25th July 2011. In the said affidavit it is stated in para 2 thereof, as follows :- "further submit that pursuant to the aforesaid order the Official Liquidator has supplied the Official Liquidator's Report dated 11.05.2011. However, the copy of the report of the Chartered Accountant in respect of verification of the workers' claim in terms of the order dated 07.07.2011 has been not supplied to date " In view of the said averments, the Counsel appearing for respondent State Bank of India was requested to ask the concerned officers who attended the meeting to remain present before the Court. They have now disputed the record of the minutes dated 09.07.2011 and also alleged that the report of Chartered Accountant has not been served on them. 25. IN this background it is necessary to recall that the two reports (given in 2005 and 2006) by the Chartered Accountant were placed on record of the Company Application NO.203 of 2001. The details of the said report were also reflected in the reports filed by Official Liquidator i.e. Official Liquidator's Reports dated 29.09.2005 and 23.01.2006. 26. TILL then i.e. until disposal of said application any affidavits controverting the said reports were not filed by the bank at the relevant time. It is also necessary to recall that in October 2007, the Court had directed to consider the claim of the workers to the extent of admissible limit and the said order has also pot been challenged by the respondent Bank. 27. WHAT emerges is the fact that the verification made by the Chartered Accountant and the certificate certifying that the workers' claim which qualify for the purpose of Section 529A, at least to the extent of Rs.34,85,47,106/- has not been disputed by the respondent bank since 2006 until now. 28. HOWEVER, now, when request for ad hoc disbursement is made which is, in turn, not disputed by the other two secured creditors subject to their contentions and final determination of the entire admissible claim and ratio for disbursement, the respondent No.2 bank has, after all these years, sought to raise objection as regards the verification report and as regards the amount of claim by the workers. Objection is also raised with regard to the request for ad hoc disbursement. Reliance is placed on the provisions contained in Rules 163 to 168 and 176 of the Company Court Rules and the learned Counsel has submitted that the ad hoc disbursement may not be made and any figure certified by the Chartered Accountant may not be recognized and accepted as regards the admissible claim amount of the workers. Though the contention is made during oral submissions, such averment is not found in para Nos. 2 to 4 of the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 filed by the respondent State Bank of India. The said paras read thus :- "2. I further submit that pursuant to the aforesaid order the Official Liquidator has supplied the Official Liquidator's Report dated 11.05.2011. Though the contention is made during oral submissions, such averment is not found in para Nos. 2 to 4 of the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 filed by the respondent State Bank of India. The said paras read thus :- "2. I further submit that pursuant to the aforesaid order the Official Liquidator has supplied the Official Liquidator's Report dated 11.05.2011. However, the copy of the report of the Chartered Accountant in respect of verification of the workers' claim in terms of the order dated 07.07.2011 has been not supplied to date " 3. I further submit that the Official Liquidator has served upon the respondent No. 3 bank, further report dated 20.07.2011 submitting therein the Report dated 13.07.2011 of Vibhakar J. Trivedi and Co., Chartered Accountant (CA) in respect of verification of claim of secured creditors and the ratio determined on the basis of such verification for the purpose of disbursement. 4. I submit that the bare perusal of the report of the Chartered Accountant with respect to the claim of State Bank of India, the respondent No.3 reveals that the basis for computing the admissible claim of SBI is erroneous inasmuch as the CA has excluded the interest from the date of filing of the Civil Suit i.e.07.02.1985 till the date of winding up order i.e.22.12.1989 in terms of the decree passed on 30.01.1992. I, therefore submit that the CA is not justified in reducing the claim of SBI from Rs.5, 73, 99, 210/- to Rs.3, 62,15, 578/- and the final ratio of distribution determined by the CA on the basis of reduced claim of SBI, cannot be accepted for the purpose of disbursement." 29. WHAT emerges from the aforesaid narration is that :- (a) the amount certified by the C.A. in 2006 was never objected by the State Bank of India at the relevant time in Company Application No.203 of 2001 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2007. (b) The said order dated 03.10.2007, whereby the Court directed the OL to take steps for considering the claim of the workers, has also not been challenged. (c) Even in the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 the quantification of workers' claim as contained in the report of the C.A. made in 2005 is not disputed. (b) The said order dated 03.10.2007, whereby the Court directed the OL to take steps for considering the claim of the workers, has also not been challenged. (c) Even in the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 the quantification of workers' claim as contained in the report of the C.A. made in 2005 is not disputed. (d) It is also not claimed in the said affidavit by the State Bank of India that those reports of 2005 and 2006 were not made available at the relevant time or at any stage. (e) Even if the claim of the State Bank of India that the report of Chartered Accountant M/s. Vibhakar J. Trivedi and Co. was not made available to it at any point of time earlier, the fact remains that the said report was made part of the OLR dated 20th July 2011 as its annexure and that was served to the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent State Bank of India and thereafter the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 came to be filed by the State Bank of India. (f) In the said affidavit also it is not alleged that along with the OLR dated 20th July 2011, the Chartered Accountant's report dated 13.07.2011 was not served on them. (g) Furthermore, as noticed hereinabove also, in para Nos.2 to 5 of the said affidavit dated 25.07.2011, the State Bank of India has not made any averments disputing the claim amount admissible to the workers for the purpose of Section 529A, as determined by the C.A. 30. DESPITE such factual background, when the request of the workers for ad hoc disbursement out of the amount of about Rs.13.50 crores available with the Official Liquidator is considered, the respondent State Bank of India has, for objecting the ad hoc disbursement, alleged that the reports of the Chartered Accountants have not been served. Said respondent has even alleged that the record of the meeting as reflected in the minutes dated 09.07.2011 is not correct. Said respondent has even alleged that the record of the meeting as reflected in the minutes dated 09.07.2011 is not correct. So far as the objection as regards the request for ad hoc disbursement by the said respondent bank is concerned, the learned Advocate representing the workers and the learned Advocate representing the OL have submitted that the said aspect is wholly within the discretion of the Court and there is no provision under the Act or Rules which prohibits the Court from making any order for ad hoc disbursement in favour of secured creditors and workers, during the period when the claims are being verified for final disbursement and ratio for final disbursement is being determined. So far as two other secured creditors are concerned, they have stipulated that if any ad hoc disbursement is made without prejudice to their contentions as regards their claim amounts and the final amount which may be taken into account as claim of workers, and without prejudice to the contentions regarding final ratio for disbursement, then they do not have any objection for such ad hoc disbursement. 31. IN fact, learned Counsel for two secured creditors i.e. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Central bank of INdia have, suggested below mentioned figures for the said purpose of ad hoc disbursement, subject to their aforesaid objections and contentions. Creditors Dues in Crores Ratio % Amount in Crores Workers(2908) 37.60 76.93 9.23 SBI 5.74 11.74 1.41 IDBI 4.45 9.10 1.09 CBI 1.09 2.23 0.27 _ 100 00_12.00_ 32. SO far as the contention raised by learned Counsel for State Bank of India, on the strength of the provisions contained in Rules 163 to 168 and 178 is concerned, the learned Counsel has submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Rules is required to be followed for the purpose of disbursement and for determining the extent of admissible claim. SO far as the contention raised by learned Counsel for State Bank of India, on the strength of the provisions contained in Rules 163 to 168 and 178 is concerned, the learned Counsel has submitted that the procedure prescribed under the Rules is required to be followed for the purpose of disbursement and for determining the extent of admissible claim. True it is that before the final disbursement of the total receipts from the sale proceeds is made, and for that purpose, before the ratio for disbursement is determined on the basis of admissible claim, the procedure prescribed under the Rules including the aforesaid Rules which inter alia provide that the Official Liquidator should undertake investigation as to the claims and for that purpose invite objections and take/ declare his decision which would be appealable by the aggrieved creditor and only thereafter, upon issuance of necessary notice, the disbursement can be made. When the said Rules are examined, it emerges that the said Rules do not prohibit ad hoc disbursement on the basis of an ad hoc ratio which may be determined inter se with consensus of the secured creditors and the workers or by the Court at the suggestion of the Official Liquidator, more particularly, when the entire assets of the Company are yet not sold out and further sale proceeds out of sale of other assets is yet to come in the hands of the Official Liquidator and when despite winding up order having been passed almost 22 years before, any secured creditors or workers are not paid any amount then in such circumstances, in view of this Court, there is no prohibition under the said Rules which would not allow the Court to make appropriate order for ad hoc disbursement to the secured creditors and workers (in view of the provisions of Section 529A) either on the basis of an ad hoc ratio settled by the said parties inter se or by the Court as per the suggestion of the Official Liquidator based on an independent Chartered Accountant's report. The order which follows is passed having regard to the aforesaid aspects. In this context a reference also may be made to Rules 6 and 9 of Rules of 1959 which confer jurisdiction on the Court in the nature of inherent jurisdiction to make appropriate directions as may be necessary for the ends of justice. 33. The order which follows is passed having regard to the aforesaid aspects. In this context a reference also may be made to Rules 6 and 9 of Rules of 1959 which confer jurisdiction on the Court in the nature of inherent jurisdiction to make appropriate directions as may be necessary for the ends of justice. 33. HAVING regard to the aforesaid aspects and as a result of the above noted discussion, 1 am of the view that Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules confers inherent jurisdiction on the Court to pass appropriate necessary order and to give such directions and pass such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice and also having regard to the fact that when this Court has power to direct disbursement of the available amounts in accordance with the provision of Sections 529, 529A and 530 then such power to direct final disbursement would include power to direct ad hoc disbursement as well, therefore, having regard to all of the above discussed aspects and also having regards to the fact that :- (a) in response to the OLR dated 27th September 2005 filed in Company application No.203 of 2001 any objection either as regards to the Chartered Accountant's report and/or the details with reference to the workers' claim eligible for the purpose of Section 529 was not filed/raised by the respondent State Bank of India, (b) Similarly, any objection was not filed/raised by the respondent State Bank of India, at the relevant time, in connection with the details of the claim of the workers eligible for Section 529A of the Companies Act, and/or with regard to the Chartered Accountant's report of which reference was made in the said OLR dated 23.01.2006, (c) the order dated 03.10.2007 was passed by the Court wherein it was inter alia observed that, ".......the Official Liquidator shall consider the claim found to the extent of admissible limit and for the disputed claim the matter shall be considered by the Official Liquidator and the same shall be finalized by this Court at the time when disbursement is to be ordered", and the same order was not and has not been challenged by the respondent State Bank of India, (d) and considering the fact emerging from the record of the said Company Application No.203 of 2001 that at any stage of the said proceedings, the respondent State Bank had never raised any objection or dispute with regard to the details of the claim of the workmen and/or with regard to the report of the Chartered Accountant and the "disputed claim" of which reference made in the order dated 03.10.2007 was in view of the dispute/ objection recorded by the Chartered Accountant in respect of the workers' claim to the extent of Rs.5,46,55,820 (comprising Rs. 2, 50, 20,379/- towards privilege leave, Rs.2, 58, 73, 673/-towards bonus and Rs.37, 61,768/-towards notice pay) in the report dated 29th September 2005 and in respect of the workers' claim to the extent of Rs.5, 47, 50, 284/- (comprising Rs.2, 51,14, 843/- privilege leave, Rs.2, 58, 73, 673/- towards bonus and Rs.37, 61, 768/- towards notice pay) mentioned by the Official Liquidator in the report dated 23.01.2006. The said reference of "disputed claim" as mentioned in the order dated 03.10.2007 was obviously not with reference to any objection raised by the respondent State Bank of India inasmuch as at any stage in the said application, any objection was not filed/ raised by the respondent State Bank of India, (e) even in respect of present application, the respondent State Bank of India had not filed any objection until 25th July 2011 when, for the first time, the affidavit came to be filed by the respondent State Bank of India. Even in the said affidavit dated 25th July 2011 either in para 2, 3 or 4 of the said affidavit any objection with regard to the details of the claim of the workmen as mentioned in the OLR dated 11.05.2011 (at page 21) and/or as mentioned in the Chartered Accountant's report dated 13.07.2011 (at page 36), has not been raised. Actually, the only objection which is raised in the affidavit dated 25.07.2011 is with respect to its own claim and it is submitted that the Chartered Accountant is not justified in reducing its claim i.e. claim of respondent State Bank of India from Rs.5, 73,99, 210/-to Rs.3,62,15,578/-. In fact, the said respondent State Bank of India has also not raised any dispute with regard to the claim amount by other two secured creditors/financial institutions viz. IDBI Bank and Central Bank of India, (f) and also having regard to the fact that though the winding up order came to be made in December 1989 and almost 22 years have rolled by since then the workers have not been paid any amount until now and (g) also having regard to the fact that although the sale proceeds have been received since December 2010, any order with regard to disbursement could not be passed until now and the amounts are lying idle, without disbursement, with the Official Liquidator. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances, it appears appropriate to pass order for ad hoc disbursement keeping alive all rights and objections of all secured creditors including the respondent State Bank of India as well as all the workers, as regards the quantification of the final claim and/or disbursement ratio, and that therefore I am inclined to accept the request for ad hoc disbursement of the amount available with the Official Liquidator, amongst the secured creditors and the workers. 34. I have taken note of the objections of the State Bank of India and therefore it is observed and clarified that it would be open to the said respondent State Bank of India to accept the amount or not to accept the amount or to accept it with objection. If the respondent State Bank of India does not come forward to accept the amount in pursuance of this order, it would be open to the Official Liquidator to retain the said amount separately for the purpose of disbursement and such amount shall remain earmarked for the purpose of said secured creditor. I also consider it appropriate to allow the Official Liquidator to retain about Rs.1.50 crores for contingency and other expenses for disbursement which may become necessary in future. 35. THIS would leave behind a sum of about Rs.12 crores available for ad hoc disbursement. 36. FOR this purpose, I also consider it appropriate to take into account the lowest figure amongst the three figures available on record so far as workers' claim is concerned i.e. Rs.34.85 crores as against the figure of Rs.44 crores or even Rs.37.59 crores as mentioned in other reports. This, however, would be without prejudice to the contentions and objections as well as right of the workers to claim that higher amount is admissible for the purpose of Section 529A in view of the provisions of the Act as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Jubilee Mills. 37. AS a result of the above discussion, following directions are issued :- (A) Out of the total amount of Rs. 37. AS a result of the above discussion, following directions are issued :- (A) Out of the total amount of Rs. 13.50 crores available in the hands of Official Liquidator (for disbursement), the Official Liquidator is directed to disburse on ad hoc basis, a sum of Rs.12 crores in below mentioned ratio, and to retain balance amount (invested in F.D. Receipt with any Nationalized Bank for such period which may yield highest rate of interest). Creditors Amount in Crores Workers (2908) 9.23 SBI 1.41 IDBI 1.09 CBI_0.27 Total_12.00 (B) It is clarified that present order is passed in view of consent by the learned Advocates representing the workers, respondent No.2 - Central Bank of India and respondent No.3 -IDBI Bank. In fact, as noted earlier, the above mentioned ratio is worked out by and with the consent of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to which, the learned Advocate for the workers has also agreed. The learned Advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and workers have clarified that the consent is without prejudice to their rights and contentions as regards the final quantification of their respective claim and also as regards the final quantification of ratio for disbursement. (C) Therefore, it is also clarified that the present order and/or the aforesaid distribution is without prejudice to the rights of the said three secured creditors as well as the workers with respect to quantification of their final claim and/or the disbursement ratio. (D) The rider mentioned above in para 50, is part of this direction. (E) Orders accordingly. 38. THE Company Application No.310 of 2011 accordingly stands disposed of. Application stands disposed of.