https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793424 Directions requiring the Committee of Creditors to reconsider approval of an insolvency resolution professional, without finally determining the appellant's entitlement to continue in office, were treated as interlocutory and precautionary. Because the Committee of Creditors had not yet taken a final decision on approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the orders did not conclusively adjudicate rights or cause final prejudice. On that basis, the appellate tribunal stated that the orders did not call for interference at that stage. en-us Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793424 Directions requiring the Committee of Creditors to reconsider approval of an insolvency resolution professional, without finally determining the appellant's entitlement to continue in office, were treated as interlocutory and precautionary. Because the Committee of Creditors had not yet taken a final decision on approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the orders did not conclusively adjudicate rights or cause final prejudice. On that basis, the appellate tribunal stated that the orders did not call for interference at that stage. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793424