Appellate court upholds award-holder's claim pre-IBC, directs release of proceeds.

The appellate court confirmed that the award-holder's claim was crystallized by the deposit made by the second appellant before the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) came into effect. The court held that the IBC did not affect the award-holder's right to the deposited amount, dismissing the appellants' argument. The court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable, directing the Registrar to release the proceeds to the respondents. The judgment emphasized the validity and lawfulness of the execution proceeding.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the execution of the arbitral award.
2. Impact of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the execution of the arbitral award.
3. Rights of the award-holder to claim the deposited amount post-IBC resolution plan approval.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Execution of the Arbitral Award:
The appeal arises from the order directing the Registrar to release the proceeds of a bank account to the respondents, who are the award-holders. The second appellant, an insolvent company, failed to satisfy an arbitral award dated December 8, 2000, which directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 6,82,62,117/- with interest. The award became a deemed decree under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The second appellant deposited Rs. 13,38,31,477.30/- with the Registrar, Original Side, as directed by the executing court. The appellate court's judgment on March 16, 2009, confirmed that the respondents' claim was crystallized in the money deposited in the executing court.

2. Impact of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) on the Execution of the Arbitral Award:
The IBC was promulgated in 2016, and a resolution process commenced for the second appellant on August 30, 2018. The respondents did not submit their claim during the resolution process. The appellants argued that the IBC has a prevailing effect over the arbitral award, and since the respondents did not lodge their claim during the insolvency proceedings, they cannot enforce their claim post-resolution plan approval. However, the court held that the deposit made by the second appellant in 2007 was prior to the IBC's promulgation, and the right to the deposited amount had already passed to the respondents.

3. Rights of the Award-Holder to Claim the Deposited Amount Post-IBC Resolution Plan Approval:
The court noted that the second appellant's deposit of the awarded sum with the executing court was an unequivocal acceptance of the award. The executing court held the deposited amount as a trustee for the respondents. The appellate order of March 16, 2009, confirmed that the award was satisfied upon the deposit. The respondents' claim was thus crystallized, and the IBC's provisions did not affect the respondents' right to the deposited amount. The court dismissed the appellants' argument that the respondents could not claim the amount due to the IBC resolution plan approval.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeal by the appellants was not maintainable and dismissed it with costs. The Registrar was directed to release the proceeds to the respondents upon receiving communication that the appeal arising from the special leave petition had been withdrawn. The court held that the IBC did not override the respondents' right to the deposited amount, which had been satisfied prior to the IBC's promulgation. The judgment emphasized that the execution proceeding was just, proper, lawful, and valid.

---