ORDER A.S. Bopanna , J.—The instant application is filed by the Official Liquidator under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The prayers sought in the application is to declare the sale made by the first respondent as null and void and to direct the secured creditors to transfer their respective sale proceeds to the Official Liquidator along with accrued interest thereon. The respondents have appeared and filed their objection statement. The sale made by the first respondent is sought to be justified on the ground that the Debt Recoveries Tribunal at Mumbai in the proceedings before it, whereunder the Official Liquidator was also a respondent, had permitted the secured creditors to sell the property belonging to the Company-in-liquidation and as such, the applicant cannot object at this stage is the contention. Respondent No. 10 would however contend that they are not at all a necessary party to the instant application and they have no claim whatsoever against the company-in-liquidation. 2. In the light of the above, I have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The Company in liquidation viz., Karnataka Ball Bearings Corporation Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court vide the order dated 18.10.2001 passed in Co. P. No. 10/88. In respect of the said Company-In-liquidation, the secured creditors led by the first respondent had also instituted proceedings before the Debt Recoveries Tribunal at Mumbai in Original Application No. 752/2001. To the said proceedings, the Official Liquidator had also been impleaded as a party since at that point, the company petition was pending before this Court. In the said proceedings, in view of the leave granted by the Debt Recoveries Tribunal, the first respondent-secured creditors leading the consortium after notifying the Official Liquidator, had thereafter sold the property belonging to the Company-in-liquidation. The objection put forth 'in the instant application on behalf of the Official Liquidator is that the property could not have been sold by the secured creditors as the winding up proceeding was pending and in any event, the secured creditors could not have appropriated the amount unto themselves without leave of the company Court. The objection put forth 'in the instant application on behalf of the Official Liquidator is that the property could not have been sold by the secured creditors as the winding up proceeding was pending and in any event, the secured creditors could not have appropriated the amount unto themselves without leave of the company Court. It is in that context contended that the sale of the property belonging to the Company-in-liquidation is liable to be set aside and the Official Liquidator should be permitted to take charge of the assets and realise the amount. In the alternative, it is contended that the amount realised and appropriated by the secured creditors should be directed to be deposited with the Official Liquidator. 4. As already noticed, the contention of the respondents is that the sale has been made as permitted by the Debt Recoveries Tribunal and thereafter a transparent procedure has been followed whereby the Official Liquidator had also been notified and as such the issue of declaring the sale as null and void does not arise. Even otherwise, it is contended that the appropriation has been made at this juncture to the entire extent inasmuch as the Official Liquidator has not put forth any claim relating to any other secured creditor or the workmen and employees of the company, who would have got preferential disbursement of the sale proceeds as contemplated under Section 529A of the Companies Act. 5. In this light, the position of law is well-settled that the secured creditors would be entitled to sell the property, but would have to adopt transparent procedure by involving the Official Liquidator also for the said sale. In the instant case, as noticed, the Official Liquidator had been notified as to the value and mode of sale. At that juncture, no specific objection had been put forth by the Official Liquidator. It is no doubt true, in my opinion, that before appropriation the secured creditor should have taken leave of this Court, However in the instant case, much water has flown under the bridge and therefore, an appropriate decision requires to be taken in that regard. Firstly, with regard to the challenge to the sale, it cannot be maintained at this stage, since the Official Liquidator had been involved in the process by issue of notice. Secondly, the purchaser has not been made a party to the instant proceedings. Firstly, with regard to the challenge to the sale, it cannot be maintained at this stage, since the Official Liquidator had been involved in the process by issue of notice. Secondly, the purchaser has not been made a party to the instant proceedings. Further, the purchaser would have altered his position inasmuch as the sale is stated to have been conducted on 28.07.2004 and nearly 8 years have elapsed as on today. Therefore, insofar as setting aside the sale, I am of the opinion that the prayer made cannot be accepted. 6. The question however is with regard to the appropriation of the amount and as to whether the secured creditors should be directed to redeposit the amount with the Official Liquidator. In this regard also, it is seen that the appropriation has been made immediately after the sale in the year 2004. The total amount realised from the sale is also indicated in the application at Rs. 4,49,42,198.86 ps. The said amount has been appropriated in the proportion as indicated against the name of each of the secured creditors as contained in paragraph 2(i) to (xi) of the application. Hence, at this juncture, when the total value of the assets realised is known to the Official Liquidator and the manner of appropriation by the secured creditors is also known, the question of the secured creditors redepositing the amount would arise only if the Official Liquidator entertains the claims in respect of the Company-in-liquidation and in that regard, if it is found that the amounts are due and payable to any other secured creditor or to the workmen of the Company-in-liquidation. 7. Hence, in a circumstance of the present nature, the appropriate order to be made would be to reserve liberty to the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claims which have already been invited and on admitting any of the claims of the workmen or any other secured creditor, the proportion payable to such of those workmen and secured creditor, if any could be determined on a pari passu basis, keeping in view the total amount that has been realised, the Official Liquidator shall thereafter communicate to the secured creditors the respective portions to be deposited by each of the secured creditors towards settling such claims. In that regard, in order to enable the Official Liquidator to adjudicate the claims in a proper manner as contemplated in law, the secured creditors herein shall also file their claims before the Official Liquidator indicating amount which was due to them. In that regard, the Official Liquidator shall issue notices to the secured creditors to file their claims for the purpose of adjudication. 8. In the event amount is due to workmen, the secured creditor would be bound in law to deposit such portion of the amount with the Official Liquidator, Needless to mention that if the secured creditors fail to deposit the amount pursuant to the demand to be made by the Official Liquidator, it would still be open for the Official Liquidator to file appropriate application at that stage before this Court seeking for necessary directions. In that view, the present prayer made in the application in my view need not be granted at this stage. As noticed above, since respondent No. 10 has no claim as against the Company-in-liquidation nor have appropriated any amount, any of the observations made in the instant application would not bind respondent No. 10. 9. In terms of the above, the instant application stands disposed of.