Senior Advocate Kevic Setalvad and advocate Pranay Goel, appearing for creditors in connected petitions, strongly opposed any deferment of the remaining orders.
Setalvad argued that a bilateral settlement in one case could not stall orders in matters involving other creditors.
“I don’t think, with the utmost respect, that this settlement, coming in at the 18th hour, so to speak, should have any bearing on the other matters.”
He said the creditors had incurred substantial costs while pursuing the cases for nearly two years and should not be forced to argue them afresh before another bench.
Setalvad likened the situation to a “buy one, get eight free” arrangement and argued that it should not be permitted.
Goel supported the…