The applicability of delay damages to the debts of a bankrupt merchant has long constituted a particularly challenging and unresolved issue within Iranian commercial law. Owing to the complete legislative silence on this specific matter, divergent judicial practices emerged over time, creating considerable uncertainty for both creditors and insolvency practitioners. The Supreme Court of Iran has issued several precedential rulings in the form of opinions of the General Board, which collectively reflect a marked fluctuation in judicial approach. This evolution ranges from an absolute denial of any entitlement to delay damages to a more recent acceptance of compensation for losses arising from currency devaluation and inflationary erosion of monetary value. The present research, employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying exclusively on library resources, systematically examines these successive judicial approaches and traces the broader evolution of practice before the Iranian courts. It appears that the earlier approach adopted by the Supreme Court was primarily shaped by foundational principles of bankruptcy law. These included the imperative of maintaining strict equality among all creditors, the prohibition against any interference by the bankrupt merchant with the administration of their own assets, and the practical difficulties inherent in accurately calculating ancillary or consequential amounts during the complex liquidation process. In contrast, the newer judicial approach places greater emphasis on the necessity of preserving the real value of money under persistent inflationary conditions and on preventing potential abuse of the insolvency framework by debtors. This perspective seeks to mitigate the adverse effects that the formal suspension of payments inevitably imposes upon creditors. Nevertheless, the most recent opinion of the General Board of the Supreme Court, No. 877 dated 1405/3/12, itself confronts several structural and substantive challenges. These include the non-observance of the principle of equality among creditors, the judicial expansion of the legal effects of the suspension of payments beyond the explicit statutory framework, an unjustified increase in the overall quantum of the bankrupt merchant’s debt, and the creation of additional jurisdictional powers for the liquidation administration that lack clear legislative foundation. While this progressive evolution in judicial practice represents a meaningful step toward more effective protection of creditors and greater alignment with contemporary economic realities, its inherent conflict with certain fundamental principles of bankruptcy law ultimately underscores the pressing need for targeted legislative intervention to restore coherence and predictability to the system.