Controlling precedent governs pending insolvency appeals, substitution allowed, and appellate order set aside with time granted for completion.

Substitution was permitted because the respondent had no objection and the proposed substitute had already become the Resolution Professional. The pending appeals were then decided in line with the earlier controlling Supreme Court precedent after the review petitions against that decision were dismissed, and the impugned NCLAT order was set aside. Consequential relief followed from the governing precedent, and 90 days were granted to the substituted Resolution Professional to complete the process.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the substitution application could be allowed on the respondent becoming the Resolution Professional; and (ii) whether the impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was liable to be set aside and the appeals allowed in the light of the earlier decision governing the controversy.

Issue (i): whether the substitution application could be allowed on the respondent becoming the Resolution Professional.

Analysis: The original respondent had no objection to the application, and the person sought to be substituted had already been appointed as the Resolution Professional.

Conclusion: The substitution application was allowed.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal was liable to be set aside and the appeals allowed in the light of the earlier decision governing the controversy.

Analysis: The appeals had been kept pending because review petitions in the earlier controlling decision were pending. After dismissal of those review petitions, the Court applied that decision and held that the appeals would be governed by the directions issued therein.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The substitution was permitted, the appellate order was displaced by the controlling precedent, and 90 days' time was granted to the substituted Resolution Professional to complete the process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier decision directly governs the controversy and remains undisturbed, the pending appeal must be decided in conformity with that precedent, and consequential relief may follow.

---