https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312762 The Chhattisgarh HC clarified that the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006 does not absolutely bar appeals against all interlocutory orders. The court held that even interim orders may have finality elements if they decide matters of moment, vitally affect parties' rights, or cannot be undone at final hearing. Examples include granting medical college admission as interim relief or refusing stay in urgent demolition cases. The proviso only bars appeals against purely interlocutory orders lacking finality elements. Orders with bearing on final adjudication or irreversible effects remain appealable despite being interim. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 05:54:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312762 The Chhattisgarh HC clarified that the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006 does not absolutely bar appeals against all interlocutory orders. The court held that even interim orders may have finality elements if they decide matters of moment, vitally affect parties' rights, or cannot be undone at final hearing. Examples include granting medical college admission as interim relief or refusing stay in urgent demolition cases. The proviso only bars appeals against purely interlocutory orders lacking finality elements. Orders with bearing on final adjudication or irreversible effects remain appealable despite being interim. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312762