The HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to have an...

The HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to have an application filed after the matter was reserved for orders heard before the NCLT pronounced its decision. The Court emphasized that once the hearing is concluded and the matter reserved, the making and pronouncement of orders may follow at a later time for convenience, without violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner's claim that denial of opportunity to place on record a document post-reservation caused serious miscarriage of justice was rejected. The HC reiterated that interference under the IBC, 2016 proceedings by High Courts should be sparing and only in exceptional circumstances. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any necessity for interference to meet ends of justice, the application was dismissed and no relief granted.

---