Resolution plan approval unchallenged, grievance left open before adjudicating authority, so interference was declined.

Interference with the appellate tribunal's order was declined because the approval of the resolution plan was not under challenge and the appellant's grievance had been expressly left open for consideration before the adjudicating authority. The Court held that, in these circumstances, there was no error in the impugned order. The request for condonation of delay was allowed, but that did not alter the merits outcome. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the impugned order of the appellate tribunal when the approval of the resolution plan was not under challenge and the appellant's grievance had been left open for consideration before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The request for condonation of delay was allowed. On merits, the Court noted that the approval of the resolution plan was not in question. It further noted that the appellate tribunal had expressly left open the appellant's grievance regarding payment of a lesser amount than claimed, to be pursued in the pending proceedings before the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, no error in the impugned order was found.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the appeal failed.

---