Issues: Whether termination of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which granted the relief sought, could be challenged before the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The termination of the proceedings had itself resulted in the grant of relief in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. That termination therefore did not furnish a basis to question the NCLAT order.

Conclusion: The NCLAT order terminating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was not open to challenge on the stated ground.

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain writ applications challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal when a statutory appellate remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was available.

Analysis: An aggrieved party against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal must pursue the appellate remedy before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. No sufficient reason existed to invoke writ jurisdiction against the National Company Law Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ applications; the aggrieved respondents may pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal in liquidation proceedings should be entertained when an appellate remedy is available under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Although the constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not curtailed by statutory provisions, Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers a broadly worded right of appeal upon every person aggrieved by an order of the adjudicating authority under Part II of the Code. Since the provision covers an aggrieved person and does not restrict the nature of the appealable order, judicial discipline requires recourse to the statutory appellate mechanism rather than invocation of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the National Company Law Tribunal's order ought not to have been entertained where the statutory appellate remedy under the Code was available.

Issues: Whether unadjudicated interest and damages under the provident fund law, not determined before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, must be provided for in an approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident fund dues may stand excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, interest and damages under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which had neither been determined nor become final before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process, are contingent and uncrystallized liabilities. A resolution plan may make a lump-sum provision for such liabilities in the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, but absence of such provision does not by itself violate the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The resolution applicant is entitled to certainty regarding liabilities assumed under the plan, and approval of a Committee-approved plan may be declined only on the limited grounds under Section 30(2) of that Code.

Conclusion: Uncrystallized claims for interest and damages need not be included in the approved resolution plan; exclusion of those claims was valid and the issue is decided against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Unadjudicated statutory interest and damages that remain uncrystallized on the commencement date of the corporate insolvency resolution process are contingent liabilities, and their omission from a Committee-approved resolution plan does not contravene the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s) were disposed of.

Outcome: The civil appeals were dismissed, and the cost of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed by the NCLAT was set aside.

Outcome: Special leave petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to request consideration of the reference by the Hon'ble Chairman of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Whether a new Interim Resolution Professional should be appointed for completion of the remaining exercise relating to execution of the conveyance deed and verification of pending home buyer claims, in view of the earlier appointee proceeding on leave.

Analysis: The existing Interim Resolution Professional was unavailable till at least the end of July 2026, which impeded compliance with the Court's earlier time-bound directions concerning registration of the apartments in consultation with the home buyers. Since claims of 71 home buyers were still pending verification, a replacement was necessary to complete the remaining exercise on behalf of the project company.

Conclusion: A new Interim Resolution Professional was appointed to complete the remaining conveyance and verification exercise, and was directed to receive the same remuneration as the earlier professionals.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was found to arise, and the impugned judgment was left undisturbed.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed; no interference was called for with the impugned order.

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain a challenge concerning proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal under the insolvency framework.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was treated as requiring consideration, with notice directed to be issued.

Outcome: Notice issued; the impugned order and further proceedings were stayed pending consideration.