https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467661 Interlocutory orders in an insolvency proceeding were treated as infructuous where the main company petition had already been fully heard and judgment reserved. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the challenged orders concerning compliance with Rule 4(3) and substitution of the assignee financial creditor were procedural in character and intended to facilitate adjudication of the main petition. As no interim protection operated, entertaining the challenges would risk reopening concluded proceedings. The appeals were therefore closed as infructuous, while the appellant's objections on Rule 4(3) compliance and substitution were left open to be raised in an appeal against the final order if those points remained unaddressed. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 18:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467661 Interlocutory orders in an insolvency proceeding were treated as infructuous where the main company petition had already been fully heard and judgment reserved. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the challenged orders concerning compliance with Rule 4(3) and substitution of the assignee financial creditor were procedural in character and intended to facilitate adjudication of the main petition. As no interim protection operated, entertaining the challenges would risk reopening concluded proceedings. The appeals were therefore closed as infructuous, while the appellant's objections on Rule 4(3) compliance and substitution were left open to be raised in an appeal against the final order if those points remained unaddressed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467661