https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775911 The HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to have an application filed after the matter was reserved for orders heard before pronouncement by the NCLT, as no serious miscarriage of justice occurred. Citing SC precedents, the court emphasized that once hearing is concluded, orders may be pronounced later for convenience, and reopening evidence post-argument is only allowed under exceptional circumstances via inherent powers. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any necessity for interference under IBC, 2016. Consequently, the HC dismissed the application, affirming that High Courts should exercise restraint in intervening in IBC proceedings except in exceptional cases. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2025 07:24:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775911 The HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to have an application filed after the matter was reserved for orders heard before pronouncement by the NCLT, as no serious miscarriage of justice occurred. Citing SC precedents, the court emphasized that once hearing is concluded, orders may be pronounced later for convenience, and reopening evidence post-argument is only allowed under exceptional circumstances via inherent powers. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any necessity for interference under IBC, 2016. Consequently, the HC dismissed the application, affirming that High Courts should exercise restraint in intervening in IBC proceedings except in exceptional cases. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775911