" NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1396 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Gaursons India Pvt. Ltd. …Appellants Versus L & T Finance Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Fernandes Sr. Advocate with Dr. Veenu Singhal and Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Abhya Chitravanshi, Mr. Mukund Gupta, Ms. Poonam Dolo, Advocates for R1 and R2. Mr. Rajat Sinha, Advocate for R4. Mr. Lokesh Malik, Advocate for R5. O R D E R (Hybrid Mode) 16.09.2025: Heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsel appearing for the R1, R2, R4 as well as Ld. Counsel for R5. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Bench-IV in IA No. 2646/2025. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order has dereserved the orders on the application and has directed Respondent No. 1 & Respondent no. 4 i.e; Supertech Limited and Mr. Mohit Arora to file a detailed clarification in respect of the ownership of this parcel of land and execution of Exchange Deed during the subsistence of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016. Cont’d…/- 2 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1396 of 2025 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenging the order submits that IA No. 2646/2025 was filed by Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 relying on agreement to create mortgage on which interim order was passed on 30.05.2025 of maintaining a status quo. It is submitted that subsequently Adjudicating Authority has heard the application and directed the parties to file written submissions which were filed and the orders were reserved on 07.07.2025 on which date interim order was also extended. It is submitted that subsequent to the reserving the order by the impugned order; the order has been dereserved and certain clarification has been asked for. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Adjudicating Authority having heard the parties on IA No. 2646/2025 the said application needs to have been decided first. In view of the fact that interim order was passed which ws continuing from 30.05.2025. It is submitted that further applications have been filed with intent to expand the scope of the IA No. 2646/2025 which is not permissible. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Adjudicating Authority could have directed for submitting clarification and other documents. It is further submitted by the respondent that now IA No. 2646/2025 is fixed for 24.09.2025 and the clarification asked for by the Adjudication Authority has already been filed. 5. Considering the facts of present the case, we are of the view that application having already been fixed Adjudicating Authority need to consider and dispose of the application, on next date fixed or as early as possible since interim order was continued by the Adjudicating Authority. 3 of 3 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1396 of 2025 6. We are of the view that Adjudicating Authority vide disposing the application IA No. 2646/2025 shall confine to the issue raised in the application. 7. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the present appeal with regard to merits of the application. With the above, we dispose of the appeal. [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson [Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN "