https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794775 The earlier appellate order did not mandate a particular sequence for deciding the appellant's interlocutory applications before the plan approval application. It only gave the appellant liberty to request the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose of those applications first. Since the record showed that the interlocutory applications had already been heard and orders reserved before the plan approval application was heard and reserved, no procedural infirmity was found in the adjudicating authority's conduct. The adjudicating authority was therefore held not to have erred, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794775 The earlier appellate order did not mandate a particular sequence for deciding the appellant's interlocutory applications before the plan approval application. It only gave the appellant liberty to request the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose of those applications first. Since the record showed that the interlocutory applications had already been heard and orders reserved before the plan approval application was heard and reserved, no procedural infirmity was found in the adjudicating authority's conduct. The adjudicating authority was therefore held not to have erred, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794775