Reconstitution of committee supersedes earlier interlocutory records, requiring claim disputes and challenges to be pursued in fresh reconstitution proceedings.

When an adjudicating order directs reconsideration and reconstitution of the committee of creditors, earlier interlocutory records of the superseded constitution merge into and are displaced by the reconsideration process, and appeals against those interlocutory records do not survive; procedural orders recording confirmation of an interim resolution professional are not set aside absent a separate challenge where claim admission and voting have been revisited and remain subject to fresh proceedings; any dispute over claim admissibility or alleged connivance must be pursued in the pending reconstitution-related application rather than in these appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether appeals against interlocutory applications I.A. No.2154 of 2024 and I.A. No.1712 of 2024 survive after reconstitution of the committee of creditors and subsequent orders; (ii) Whether the order recording confirmation of the interim resolution professional as resolution professional in I.A. No.1716 of 2024 is liable to be set aside; (iii) Whether the appellant's remedy in respect of disputed claim admission lies in the present appeals or in the pending proceedings arising from reconstitution (I.A. No.76 of 2025).

Issue (i): Whether appeals against I.A. No.2154 of 2024 and I.A. No.1712 of 2024 survive consideration.

Analysis: I.A. No.2154 recorded the constitution of an earlier committee of creditors and I.A. No.1712 recorded a subsequent reconstitution. The adjudicating order in I.A. No.1418 of 2024 set aside the earlier constitution and directed reconsideration and reconstitution. Following that direction the resolution professional reconstituted the committee and initiated fresh proceedings (I.A. No.76 of 2025). The effect of the order in I.A. No.1418 of 2024 is to supersede and merge the earlier I.A.s to the extent they record the now-set-aside constitution; the later reconstitution and pending application supplant the earlier recorded positions.

Conclusion: The appeals against I.A. No.2154 of 2024 and I.A. No.1712 of 2024 do not survive. Conclusion in favour of Respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the order in I.A. No.1716 of 2024 confirming the interim resolution professional as resolution professional is liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The application under Section 22(3) sought recording of the appointment arising from the committee of creditors' decision. The order recording confirmation is procedural in character. The respondent-side position includes that claim admission and voting shares were revisited under the December 18, 2024 direction and the resolution professional reaffirmed his earlier claim admission, a step which has not been challenged separately. The admissibility and quantum of the disputed claim and any allegation of connivance require determination in the proceedings instituted for reconsideration and in the pending I.A. No.76 of 2025 rather than by annulling a procedural confirmation order where no separate challenge has been pursued.

Conclusion: The challenge to I.A. No.1716 of 2024 is without merit. Conclusion in favour of Respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant's challenge to claim admission can be sustained in these appeals or must be pursued in the pending proceedings.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority directed the resolution professional to revisit claim admission and reconstitute the committee; the resolution professional revisited and reaffirmed the admitted amount and has initiated fresh proceedings (I.A. No.76 of 2025). The appellant has not separately challenged the reaffirmation order of the resolution professional. The tribunal indicated that any factual or legal contest on claim admission is to be placed before the pending application arising from the reconstitution process.

Conclusion: The appellant must pursue relief in the pending proceedings (I.A. No.76 of 2025). Conclusion in favour of Respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeals lack merit and are dismissed; no effective relief arises from the challenged interlocutory orders in view of the reconstitution and pending proceedings, and the appellant's available remedy lies in the ongoing reconstitution-related application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudicating order directs reconsideration and reconstitution, earlier interlocutory orders recording a superseded constitution merge into and are displaced by the reconsideration process, and procedural confirmations of appointment are not set aside in the absence of a separate successful challenge when substantive claim reconsideration and fresh proceedings are pending.

---