Interim orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority prior to final disposal allow parties to raise pleas at subsequent hearings.

The Appellant challenged an interim order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the NCLT Ahmedabad in IA No. 1511(AHM) 2025.

The Resolution Professional (RP) of the Corporate Debtor had filed the said application seeking the return of 150 EV vehicles and payment of outstanding lease dues amounting to ₹1,14,21,876/- based on a master lease agreement.

The NCLT directed the Appellant to ensure the complete handover of vehicles by the next hearing date (17.03.2026) and clear outstanding rentals.

The Appellant contended that the NCLT passed these directions without considering the merits of its reply.

The court operated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding interlocutory or interim orders.

It emphasized that when an Adjudicating Authority schedules a matter for "further consideration," the aggrieved party maintains the right to raise all factual and legal pleas before that forum rather than seeking a merits-based adjudication from the Appellate Tribunal at an intermediate stage.

The NCLAT observed that the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 was essentially "interim in nature".

The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had already scheduled the matter for further consideration on 17.03.2026.

Consequently, the NCLAT found that the Appellant’s grievance—that its reply and claims were not property adverted to—could be remedied by raising those specific submissions and pleas before the NCLT on the scheduled hearing date.

The Tribunal declined to delve into the substantive merits of the lease dispute or the handover of vehicles, as the primary proceedings were still active.

It held that it is open for the Appellant to raise all its pleas and submissions before the Adjudicating Authority on the next date of hearing, i.e., 17.03.2026.

The Appeal was disposed of with these observations.