https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465715 The dominant issue was whether the appeal hearing should be preponed. The NCLAT held that, since no notice had been issued in the main appeal, no separate notice was required in the preponement application; the appearance of counsel for certain respondents was noted. Applying its discretionary power to ensure expeditious adjudication, it found it just and expedient to prepone the main appeal from the later listed date to the same day; the preponement application was allowed. On the related issue concerning appointment of an administrator and alleged regulatory inaction, the NCLAT observed that interim directions of a learned judge appeared to substantially address issues pending before the NCLT/NCLAT and the regulator, warranting scrutiny; notice was issued. en-us Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 22:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465715 The dominant issue was whether the appeal hearing should be preponed. The NCLAT held that, since no notice had been issued in the main appeal, no separate notice was required in the preponement application; the appearance of counsel for certain respondents was noted. Applying its discretionary power to ensure expeditious adjudication, it found it just and expedient to prepone the main appeal from the later listed date to the same day; the preponement application was allowed. On the related issue concerning appointment of an administrator and alleged regulatory inaction, the NCLAT observed that interim directions of a learned judge appeared to substantially address issues pending before the NCLT/NCLAT and the regulator, warranting scrutiny; notice was issued. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465715