https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469355 Pendency of a belated interlocutory application to intervene or keep liquidation in abeyance does not stall a liquidation application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once the Committee of Creditors has approved liquidation with full voting support. Where the liquidation proposal had already been approved and the Section 33(2) application was reserved before the later intervention request, there was no legal bar to deciding the liquidation matter on merits. The statutory liquidation process, read with Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, could not be suspended by a later application of this kind, and the challenge to the liquidation order failed. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 23:25:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469355 Pendency of a belated interlocutory application to intervene or keep liquidation in abeyance does not stall a liquidation application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code once the Committee of Creditors has approved liquidation with full voting support. Where the liquidation proposal had already been approved and the Section 33(2) application was reserved before the later intervention request, there was no legal bar to deciding the liquidation matter on merits. The statutory liquidation process, read with Regulation 39 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016, could not be suspended by a later application of this kind, and the challenge to the liquidation order failed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469355