https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794365 Interpretation of an earlier appellate order was central to the dispute, with the appellant saying two interlocutory applications had to be decided before the plan approval application, while the respondents said only prior consideration was required. Because a clarificatory application on that same order was already listed before Bench No. 1, the NCLAT directed that the present appeal also be placed before the same Bench in the interest of justice. It further directed the appellant to inform the Adjudicating Authority that the matter was under active consideration before the Appellate Tribunal, to address the appellant's concern that orders might be passed meanwhile. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794365 Interpretation of an earlier appellate order was central to the dispute, with the appellant saying two interlocutory applications had to be decided before the plan approval application, while the respondents said only prior consideration was required. Because a clarificatory application on that same order was already listed before Bench No. 1, the NCLAT directed that the present appeal also be placed before the same Bench in the interest of justice. It further directed the appellant to inform the Adjudicating Authority that the matter was under active consideration before the Appellate Tribunal, to address the appellant's concern that orders might be passed meanwhile. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794365