The Deposit That Wasn't

A Critical Reading of McNally Bharat v. Metso India on Court-Held Award Money and the Insolvency Trapdoor :What It Means for a Judgment-Holder Seeking Withdrawal of a Court Deposit

McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd.

O.M.P. (COMM) 362/2018, High Court of Delhi · Coram: Avneesh Jhingan, J.

Reserved 24.07.2026 · Pronounced 03.08.2026 · Neutral citation 2026:DHC:6218

I.  The Judgment at a Glance

Court	High Court of Delhi (Commercial Division), Section 34, A&C Act, 1996
Coram	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan
Award (05.05.2018)	Rs. 5,52,00,000 in favour of Metso India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent), plus post-award interest @ 12% p.a.
Deposit ordered	23.08.2018, as a condition for stay of execution pending the Section 34 challenge
Deposit actually made	01.09.2021, as an FDR of Rs. 5,52,30,693 in the name of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court
Intervening insolvency	MBECL (Petitioner/award debtor) admitted to CIRP on 29.04.2022; Resolution Plan (BTL EPC Ltd.) approved 19.12.2023
The fatal omission	Metso never filed a claim before the Resolution Professional during the CIRP
Outcome	Section 34 petition dismissed as infructuous; deposited amount with accrued interest released back to MBECL, not to Metso

Strip away the procedural furniture and the story is almost cinematic in its irony: a party wins an arbitration, survives (or at least outlasts) a challenge to that award, watches the losing side deposit the entire decretal amount in court under judicial compulsion, and then loses the money anyway, not to the debtor's lawyers, but to its own inaction during the debtor's insolvency. Metso did everything the Arbitration Act asked of it. It did not do the one thing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code asked of it: show up before the Resolution Professional with a proof of claim. That single omission is the hinge on which nineteen pages of otherwise unremarkable execution law swing into a cautionary tale.

II.  Two Doctrines Doing the Heavy Lifting

The judgment does not rest on one holding but on two, and they deserve to be prised apart because they do quite different jobs and, in combination, close off every route back to the money.

A.  THE CLEAN-SLATE AXE : CLAIMS NOT LODGED DO NOT SURVIVE

The first doctrine is by now thoroughly settled: once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, every claim that is not reflected in that plan stands extinguished, and no proceeding may thereafter be initiated or continued in respect of it. The Court traces this from Ghanashyam Mishra through the Supreme Court's foundational reasoning in Essar Steel (“a successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with undecided claims … this would amount to a hydra head popping up”) down to a freshly minted 2026 Supreme Court restatement in Tata Steel v. Varsha, and a run of Delhi High Court decisions in, JSW Ispat, Akash Construction, Vijay Prakash, all applying the same logic specifically to arbitral awards under challenge. The award, the Court holds, was itself a ‘claim’ within the wide definition in Section 3(6) of the IBC i.e., a right to payment, whether or not reduced to judgment, and Metso, as ‘creditor’ within Section 3(10), was obliged to place that claim before the RP under the Insolvency Resolution Process Regulations. It did not. The consequence, per Akash Construction, is that the pendency of the Section 34 petition is no shield at all: the claim dies with the plan's approval regardless of how the challenge to the underlying award eventually turns out.

B.  THE ‘A DEPOSIT IS NOT A PAYMENT’ DOCTRINE : WHOSE MONEY IS IT, REALLY

The second doctrine answers a question that, on first principles, looks like it should already have been settled by the first: even if Metso's claim is dead, is the money already sitting in the Registrar General's FDR not already, in some sense, Metso's? The Court says no. Relying on the Bombay High Court's considered Division Bench ruling in Siti Networks v. Rajiv Suri, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3550, itself expressly correcting an earlier single-judge line in Reliance Communication v. Bansal 237 Comp Case 30 (Bom)(HC), the Court holds that money deposited by a corporate debtor in court, as security pending a challenge, does not cease to be the corporate debtor's asset merely because it has left the corporate debtor's physical possession. Possession sits with the court; title stays with the depositor. Reliance Naval & Engineering Ltd. v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5594 and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Gayatri Industries, (2025) 258 Comp Cas 725, decided within the same eighteen months, apply the identical logic to order deposits returned to insolvent depositors rather than released to the judgment-creditors who were meant to benefit from them.

The Court is careful, and rightly so, to defang the opposite line of authority, in Himachal Pradesh Housing v. Ranjit Singh Rana (2012) 4 SCC 505, by noting that those cases used the word ‘payment’ for an entirely different, narrower purpose: whether post-award interest under Section 37(1)(b) stops accruing once the amount is deposited. That is a question about the arithmetic of interest, not about who owns the corpus. Conflating the two would have let a depositing debtor argue, perversely, that a deposit is simultaneously ‘payment enough’ to stop the interest clock but ‘not payment’ enough to transfer title; heads it wins on the running total, tails it keeps the principal. The Court closes that loophole.

III.  The Sharp Edges

________________________________________________________________________

1.  THE DOCTRINAL PINCER: HEADS THE DEBTOR KEEPS IT, TAILS THE CREDITOR LOSES IT

Put the two doctrines side by side, and the award-holder in this fact pattern is caught in a genuine pincer, and a peculiarly elegant one. Thread One tells him his underlying right to be paid, has died for want of a form filed in time. Thread Two tells him that, quite apart from that, the specific pot of money that was set aside, by court order, in his name, for his benefit, years before anyone had heard of CIRP, was never legally his to begin with.

Either doctrine alone would have been enough to defeat Metso's application. Together, they do something more: they foreclose every fallback argument. Even if Metso could somehow argue its way around the extinguishment (say, by contending the claim crystallised outside the CIRP timeline through the deposit itself), thread two is waiting to say the deposit was never a crystallisation of anything. It is a tidy piece of legal engineering, and one suspects future litigants on Metso's side of the docket will not enjoy how tidy it is.

2.  ESCROW OR ESTATE? THE FICTION OF THE UNENCUMBERED ASSET

Here is where the sharper objection lives. Money deposited under a specific court order, in a specific proceeding, to secure a specific decree in favour of a specific named creditor, does not behave like an ordinary corporate asset i.e., like an inventory, plant, a bank balance available for general use. It behaves like a res sub judice, earmarked, its destination already substantially determined subject only to the outcome of one identified piece of litigation. Treating it, for CIRP purposes, as fungible with the corporate debtor's general asset pool is doctrinally defensible as, title genuinely never passed, and the deposit was security, not satisfaction, but it produces a result that should make anyone advising award-holders wince: a creditor who obtained an award, successfully resisted years of a Section 34 challenge, and watched the debtor's money get physically walked into the Registrar General's custody under judicial compulsion, ends up in the same position as an unsecured creditor who did nothing whatsoever.

The judicial deposit, so laboriously obtained, bought Metso no priority and, as it turns out, no protection at all.

3.  BORROWED ROBES: STRETCHING SITI NETWORKS PAST ITS OWN COMMA

Looking closely at paragraph 55(E) of Siti Networks, quoted at length in the judgment itself: “The substantive rights of the respondent who is the judgment creditor under the impugned judgment shall be subject to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,” it is clear that said is a caveat, not a closing entry. It contemplates the judgment-creditor's rights being tested and possibly vindicated, within the IBC machinery, through a claim properly lodged with the RP.

The present Judgment quotes this passage and then proceeds as though the caveat had already run its course. On these facts, fair enough: Metso never lodged a claim, so there was nothing left for the caveat to protect. But a headnote-reader who takes away only ‘court deposits are assets of the corporate debtor, full stop’ risks missing the more precise ratio: the deposit is the corporate debtor's asset unless and until a properly lodged claim converts the creditor's interest in it into something the resolution plan must reckon with. The distinction will matter enormously the next time a creditor did file its claim on time and is merely arguing about how much of the deposit the plan should allocate to it.

4.  THE VIGILANCE TAX

The single most expensive sentence in this creditor's story is paragraph 5: “The respondent had not made claim before RP of the amount awarded in the impugned award.” Everything else in the judgment follows mechanically from that one clause. There is something close to cruel about a statutory scheme in which a creditor who has already won an arbitration, already survived a challenge to it for the better part of a decade, and already has the debtor's money sitting in a court FDR with its name effectively written on the label, must nonetheless go and stand in a queue with a formal proof-of-claim form, on pain of forfeiting money that had, to any reasonable litigant, every appearance of being already secured. But this is precisely the ‘fresh slate’ logic the Supreme Court has insisted upon since Essar Steel: no surprises for the resolution applicant, however sympathetic the surprised creditor, and however unlucky the timing of the surprise.

5.  WHAT THE JUDGMENT GETS RIGHT

It would be too easy to only needle a judgment this carefully sourced. The reasoning is internally consistent and tightly anchored to five years of settled Supreme Court authority on Section 31, freshened by a 2026 restatement. More importantly, it closes a genuinely dangerous argument: that a debtor's money, the moment it is deposited in court ahead of an anticipated insolvency, is somehow already ‘paid’ and thereby insulated from the CIRP moratorium and the clean-slate principle. If that argument had succeeded, litigants on the brink of insolvency could have used court deposits as a laundering route, quietly converting general corporate assets into judgment-creditor-earmarked funds, defeating the pari passu logic the IBC exists to protect, simply by losing (or engineering a loss in) litigation shortly before filing for insolvency. The Bombay High Court was right to shut that door in Siti Networks, and Delhi was right to follow.

IV.  Precedent Map

The judgment's citations sort cleanly into three families — the two doctrines it relies on, and the line of authority it distinguishes rather than follows.

Proposition	Authority	Holding, in one line
THREAD 1 : Claims not lodged before the RP are extinguished on plan approval	Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657	Approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders; the corporate debtor gets a clean slate.
	CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531	No ‘hydra-headed’ claim may resurface post-approval; every claim must be submitted to and decided by the RP.
	Tata Steel Ltd. v. Varsha & Anr., 2026 INSC 717	Uncrystallised claims (arbitration/civil) as of the plan-approval date abate/extinguish; only crystallised claims are paid, pro rata.
	JSW Ispat Special Products v. Bharat Petroresources, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6869	Claims outside the approved plan are no longer even arbitrable.
	Akash Construction v. Indira Priyadarshini Hydro Power, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3602	The award-holder is under a positive duty to lodge its claim before the RP; a pending Section 34 challenge does not excuse the omission.
	Vijay Prakash v. Alok Industries Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5068	A claim excluded from the approved plan cannot be revived through continued civil proceedings.
THREAD 2 — A court-held deposit is not ‘payment’; it remains the corporate debtor's asset	Siti Networks Ltd. v. Rajiv Suri, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3550 (DB)	Money deposited as security for a decree remains an asset of the corporate debtor, merely in the court's custody; the judgment-creditor's rights stay subject to the IBC.
	Reliance Naval and Engineering Ltd. v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 6082	Following Siti Networks; deposit ordered returned to the insolvent depositor rather than released to the judgment-creditor.
	Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Gayatri Industries & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 556	Debt extinguished for failure to lodge a claim; bank guarantees securing it released back to the debtor side.
DISTINGUISHED — ‘payment’ for a narrower, unrelated purpose	HP Housing & Urban Development Authority v. Ranjit Singh Rana, (2012) 4 SCC 505	Deposit treated as ‘payment’ only for cessation of post-award interest under Section 37(1)(b) is not a ruling on title.
	M/s Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024:DHC:5343	Applies HP Housing's interest-cessation logic; not authority on ownership of the deposit.
	Reliance Communication Ltd. v. Rajendra P. Bansal, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 33	Confined to its own facts and, per Siti Networks, overtaken on the ownership question.

V.  The Question That Matters: Can a Judgment-Holder Apply to Withdraw a Court-Held Deposit, Treating the Award as a Money Decree?

This is the live question, and it deserves a precise answer rather than a slogan, because the answer turns entirely on three facts: whether a CIRP has intervened at all, whether a claim was lodged in time, and whether a resolution plan has already been approved and not on how the withdrawal application is drafted.

THE STATUTORY SCAFFOLDING

Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deems an award, once the challenge to it fails or the time to challenge expires, enforceable as if it were a decree of the court. Ordinarily, that fiction is a decree-holder's best friend: it lets the award-holder use the full CPC execution toolkit, including an application for release of any amount deposited in court to secure that very decree, exactly the kind of application MBECL and Metso both filed here as competing I.A.s within the same Section 34 proceeding. But Section 238 of the IBC that provides “the provisions of this Code shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law” together with the Section 14 moratorium and the Section 31 binding-and-extinguishing effect of an approved plan, overrides that ordinary machinery the moment the award debtor is swept into a CIRP. The Section 36 fiction does not evaporate; it simply stops being the operative fiction once a competing, non-obstante statutory scheme takes over the debtor's assets.

A decision matrix

Scenario	Governing logic	Can the judgment-holder apply to withdraw the deposit as a money decree?
A. No CIRP ever intervenes	Ordinary Section 36, A&C Act / Order XXI CPC execution machinery applies undisturbed; the deposit was made precisely to secure this decree.	Yes. A straightforward application for release is maintainable and is routinely allowed once the Section 34 challenge fails.
B. CIRP is initiated and still live; claim was lodged with the RP (in time)	Section 14 moratorium bars execution against the corporate debtor's assets, including the court deposit. Recovery must run through the RP/CoC process and the approved plan, or the Section 53 waterfall on liquidation.	Not directly. No standalone withdrawal application before the executing/Section 34 court. The creditor recovers only what the resolution plan (or waterfall) allocates to the admitted claim, often at a steep haircut, and any release of the court deposit must trace back to a plan term, not the original award.
C. CIRP has concluded, plan approved and implemented; no claim was ever lodged (the McNally Bharat facts)	The underlying debt stands extinguished by operation of Section 31 as of the date of plan approval. There is, in law, nothing left to enforce.	No. As McNally Bharat itself holds, the application fails, not for any drafting defect, but because the claim no longer exists. The deposit reverts to the corporate debtor / successful resolution applicant.

VI.  Conclusion

There is a certain grim symmetry to how this ends. MBECL walked out of its insolvency with a resolution applicant's fresh lease of life and, thanks to its own creditor's paperwork lapse, its old adversary's court-secured money as a parting gift. The ‘clean slate’ the Supreme Court has spent half a decade insisting upon turns out to cut in both directions with equal enthusiasm: it protects the resolution applicant from surprise claims, and it is entirely indifferent to how carefully, or how expensively, the surprised creditor thought it had already protected itself. The deposit sitting in the Registrar General's FDR looked, to any ordinary litigant, like money already won. McNally Bharat is the judgment that explains, with impeccable citation, why it never was.