https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784464 An interlocutory order regulating pleadings by permitting adoption of a counter affidavit and directing a rejoinder was treated as a routine procedural step within the tribunal's control of its proceedings and, because it did not determine substantive rights, was not liable to appellate interference. An interim stay granted in pending company proceedings was also upheld as a permissible interim arrangement based on prima facie satisfaction rather than a detailed merits determination. Alleged non-service and the absence of a prior request to vacate the stay did not vitiate the order where the appellants had participated on merits. The proper course was to seek vacation of the interim protection before the tribunal. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:47:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784464 An interlocutory order regulating pleadings by permitting adoption of a counter affidavit and directing a rejoinder was treated as a routine procedural step within the tribunal's control of its proceedings and, because it did not determine substantive rights, was not liable to appellate interference. An interim stay granted in pending company proceedings was also upheld as a permissible interim arrangement based on prima facie satisfaction rather than a detailed merits determination. Alleged non-service and the absence of a prior request to vacate the stay did not vitiate the order where the appellants had participated on merits. The proper course was to seek vacation of the interim protection before the tribunal. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784464