CIRP valuation continuity prevails where the existing valuer is familiar with the debtor and delay would worsen resolution timelines.

In CIRP valuation disputes, continuation with the existing valuer may be preferred where the valuer is already familiar with the corporate debtor, the committee of creditors supports that course, and appointing a fresh valuer would likely prolong an already delayed resolution process. The material stresses that appellate interference is not warranted absent a compelling reason, especially when repeated objections have already caused multiple valuation proceedings. The stated effect is to preserve the existing valuation process and avoid further disruption to the insolvency timeline.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order permitting continuation of the valuation process by the existing valuer instead of appointing a fresh valuer.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a dispute over valuation in the corporate insolvency resolution process. The objections raised by a creditor had already led to repeated proceedings and appointment of valuers, and the record showed that the resolution professional and the committee of creditors supported continuation with the existing valuer, who was already familiar with the matter. The order under challenge was also seen in the context of substantial delay in the CIRP, and the insistence on another fresh valuation was viewed as likely to prolong the process further. In these circumstances, no compelling ground for appellate interference was made out.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed and the direction to continue with the valuation process was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the valuation-related order was left undisturbed so that the insolvency resolution process could proceed without further delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with a valuation-related order in CIRP will not be made where the existing valuer is already acquainted with the corporate debtor, the committee of creditors has supported continuation, and further disruption would only delay the resolution process.

---