https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784578 In a dispute alleging oppression and mismanagement, the dominant issue was whether the SC should interfere with the NCLAT's order that merely directed the NCLT to prepone the hearing to the second week of September 2025, amidst allegations that certain family settlements were concealed and not participated in by one respondent. The SC held that, since the impugned order only advanced the hearing and did not finally adjudicate rights, no interference was warranted; consequently, the civil appeal was dismissed. The SC further directed maintenance of status quo only until the matter is first taken up by the NCLT, which was left to decide interim relief independently, uninfluenced by observations of the NCLAT or the SC. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784578 In a dispute alleging oppression and mismanagement, the dominant issue was whether the SC should interfere with the NCLAT's order that merely directed the NCLT to prepone the hearing to the second week of September 2025, amidst allegations that certain family settlements were concealed and not participated in by one respondent. The SC held that, since the impugned order only advanced the hearing and did not finally adjudicate rights, no interference was warranted; consequently, the civil appeal was dismissed. The SC further directed maintenance of status quo only until the matter is first taken up by the NCLT, which was left to decide interim relief independently, uninfluenced by observations of the NCLAT or the SC. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 01 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784578