Interlocutory reconsideration of resolution professional approval does not warrant appellate interference where rights remain undecided.

Directions requiring the Committee of Creditors to reconsider approval of an insolvency resolution professional, without finally determining the appellant's entitlement to continue in office, were treated as interlocutory and precautionary. Because the Committee of Creditors had not yet taken a final decision on approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the orders did not conclusively adjudicate rights or cause final prejudice. On that basis, the appellate tribunal stated that the orders did not call for interference at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned directions requiring the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the approval of the appellant's appointment as Resolution Professional in the light of earlier observations, without finally deciding the appellant's rights, called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The directions under challenge did not finally determine the appellant's entitlement to continue as Resolution Professional. They only required the Committee of Creditors to take note of earlier observations made in connected liquidation proceedings and to reconsider the matter on its own merits before a final decision was taken. As the decision on approval of appointment under Section 22 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was still to be made by the Committee of Creditors, the orders were treated as precautionary and interlocutory in nature. Since no conclusive adjudication of rights had been made, the appeals were held not to merit interference at that stage.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were held to be interlocutory and non-final, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order that merely directs reconsideration by the Committee of Creditors and does not conclusively determine the rights of the parties is interlocutory and does not warrant appellate interference.

---