not make any specific order regarding the claim over the pre-deposit amount. The Certified Creditor had applied to the release of the amount but the application was not registered by the Ld. Registrar and as directed, an application was filed before the Ld. Recovery Officer for release of the amount. There was an injunction granted restraining the Appellants from withdrawing the amount, and the said order was also communicated to this Tribunal. Subsequently, after the dismissal of the SLP challenging the orders of this Tribunal dismissing the appeal, the Certified Creditor requested a favourable order in the Recovery Proceedings. The Ld. Recovery Officer was of the view that in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was for this Tribunal to decide on the disposal of the amount and hence declined to pass any order. Hence, the present application M.A. 3 of 2023 was filed. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decisions in Chowthmull Maganmull vs. The Calcutta Wheat & Seeds Association 1924 SCC OnLine Cal 335 , a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to argue that on dismissal of appeal filed by the defendant judgment debtor, the amount on deposit was payable to the decree-holder. The Ld. Counsel also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (1987) 4 SCC 407 to argue that when in a money decree, an appeal is preferred by the judgment debtor and the decretal amount is deposited in the executing court, on dismissal of the appeal the amount on deposit shall not be refunded to the judgment debtor and that the court could in his discretion direct payment of the amount of the decreeholder.
