Liquidation waterfall governs court-deposited funds, preventing an unsecured creditor from bypassing insolvency distribution priorities.

Monies lying in deposit from proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were held to fall within the liquidation estate and had to be dealt with under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The statutory waterfall required distribution in order of priority, giving precedence to liquidation costs, workmen's dues, employee dues, secured creditors who relinquish security, and other higher-ranking claims over an unsecured financial creditor. A crystallised arbitral claim did not permit the creditor to bypass the insolvency regime. The liquidator was therefore entitled to withdraw and realise the deposited funds for distribution in accordance with the liquidation framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount lying in deposit pursuant to proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be withdrawn by the liquidator of the respondent company and be made available for distribution in accordance with the priority scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, notwithstanding the appellant's arbitral award in its favour.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the statutory order of priority in distribution of liquidation assets. The appellant was an unsecured financial creditor, and the amount in deposit represented monies recovered from garnishees in aid of the appellant's claim. The relevant statutory framework recognised that liquidation costs, workmen's dues, employee dues, secured creditors with relinquished security, and other higher-ranking claims take precedence over unsecured financial debts. The Court also noted that claims arising from crystallised adjudications do not escape the insolvency regime and must be dealt with according to the insolvency process. In that setting, the liquidator was entitled to pursue recovery and realisation of the corporate debtor's assets and dues for distribution under the statutory waterfall.

Conclusion: The liquidator was correctly permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, and the appellant could not insist on exclusive retention of the sum outside the liquidation distribution process.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the deposited funds were required to be dealt with under the insolvency liquidation framework and distributed according to the statutory priority scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a debtor is under liquidation, monies available for distribution, including sums lying in court deposit, must be applied in accordance with the statutory waterfall under the insolvency law, and an unsecured creditor cannot bypass that scheme by relying on pending or concluded recovery proceedings.

---