Liquidation process cannot be stalled by a belated intervention application after creditor approval and reservation of the liquidation motion.

Pendency of a belated interlocutory application to intervene or keep liquidation in abeyance does not stall a liquidation application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once the Committee of Creditors has approved liquidation with full voting support. Where the liquidation proposal had already been approved and the Section 33(2) application was reserved before the later intervention request, there was no legal bar to deciding the liquidation matter on merits. The statutory liquidation process, read with Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, could not be suspended by a later application of this kind, and the challenge to the liquidation order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pendency of an interlocutory application seeking to intervene or keep liquidation proceedings in abeyance could impede an application for liquidation under Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The liquidation proposal had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors with 100% voting share, and the application under Section 33(2) had been reserved before the later intervention request was filed. The later application, seeking to keep the liquidation matter in abeyance, did not create any legal bar to deciding the liquidation application on merits. Once the resolution process had failed and liquidation had been validly recommended, the pendency of a belated intervention application could not suspend the statutory process under Section 33(2), read with Regulation 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

Conclusion: The pendency of the intervention application did not obstruct liquidation proceedings, and the challenge to the liquidation order failed.

---