Dilatory interlocutory applications in insolvency proceedings were rejected, with appellate interference declined on timing and purpose.

Applications under Section 76 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were rejected as having been filed near the completion of the insolvency proceedings and as tending to delay disposal of the main matter. The appellate tribunal found no basis to disturb that procedural assessment, noting that the adjudicating authority's view on timing and object of the interlocutory applications was entitled to due weight. The challenge therefore failed, and the order refusing interlocutory reliefs was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the applications filed under Section 76 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference on the ground that they were not intended to delay the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the applications filed under Section 76 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference on the ground that they were not intended to delay the proceedings.

Analysis: The appeal arose from rejection of interlocutory applications filed in pending insolvency proceedings after the matter had already been heard on several occasions. The record indicated that the adjudicating authority had concluded that the applications were moved only when the proceedings were nearing completion and that they had the effect of delaying the disposal of the main matter. The tribunal also noted that the adjudicating authority, having conducted the proceedings and recorded its own procedural assessment, was entitled to due weight in appellate review. In these circumstances, no reason was found to take a different view on the object and timing of the applications.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the applications failed and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not accepted, and the order refusing the interlocutory reliefs was left undisturbed.

---