Interim deposits made for staying an impugned order must be refunded to the depositor upon dismissal of the appeal.

The Appellant filed an appeal against an order initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 9 of the IBC.

On 15.03.2024, the NCLAT stayed the impugned order subject to the Appellant depositing the principal amount of ₹1,11,71,649 via Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR) with the Registrar.

The appeal was subsequently dismissed on 17.12.2025.

Following dismissal, two Interlocutory Applications (I.A.s) were filed: I.A. 1265/2026 by State Bank of India (Intervener) seeking to record the appearance of its counsels in the final judgment.

I.A. 1072/2026 by the Resolution Professional (RP) seeking to transfer the deposited FDR amount to the Corporate Debtor’s account to meet CIRP costs.

Whether the names of counsels for an intervener can be recorded in a final judgment post-delivery if their attendance was not noted in the court’s digital or physical records during hearings.

Whether an amount deposited by an Appellant as a condition for an interim stay should be transferred to the Corporate Debtor’s CIRP account or returned to the Appellant upon the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that judicial records (physical attendance sheets and virtual chat box logs) are the primary evidence of counsel appearance.

Regarding the deposit, the Tribunal applied the principle of status quo ante pertaining to conditional interim orders: deposits made "without prejudice" to provide security for a stay are contingent upon the outcome of the appeal; if the appeal is dismissed, such deposits are generally refundable to the depositor unless specifically charged or forfeited by law.

Regarding I.A. 1265/2026, the Tribunal scrutinized the court records for 15.10.2025 and 17.12.2025 and found no mention of the Intervener’s counsel in the attendance sheets or the virtual chat box.

Consequently, it held that names cannot be added to a judgment post-facto without record of appearance.

Regarding I.A. 1072/2026, the Tribunal observed that the deposit was a condition for a stay of the insolvency proceedings and was made "without prejudice".

Since the purpose of the deposit was to secure the stay during the pendency of the appeal, the dismissal of said appeal necessitates the automatic refund of the security to the party that furnished it, rather than its diversion to the Corporate Debtor's insolvency costs as requested by the RP.

Regarding I.A. 1072/2026, the Tribunal held that money deposited as a condition for stay must be returned to the depositor upon dismissal of the appeal.

It directed the Registrar of NCLAT to return the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the Appellant and disposed of the application with these clarifications.