Tribunal rules on CIRP period calculation, emphasizes timely appointments and adherence to guidelines

The Tribunal partially allowed the Resolution Professional's application, excluding the initial three days but rejecting the exclusion of the subsequent 31 days for the computation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The decision underscored the significance of timely appointments and adherence to guidelines for consistency and fairness in resolution processes.

---

---

Issues:
Exclusion of certain period for computation of CIRP period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis:
The Resolution Professional filed an application seeking exclusion of certain periods for counting the statutory period for the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The first period in question was the three days lost due to the delay in appointing the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) after the admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Resolution Professional sought exclusion of these three days based on the delay in the appointment of the IRP, which was justified by the circumstances. The Tribunal agreed to exclude these three days from the computation of the CIRP period.

The second period under consideration was the 31 days between the appointment of the new Resolution Professional and the receipt of the certified copy of the appointment order. The Resolution Professional requested the exclusion of these 31 days from the CIRP period calculation. However, the Tribunal rejected this request for exclusion based on the guidelines issued by the NCLAT in a previous case. The Tribunal noted that during this period, the work of the Resolution Professional was being looked after by the previous IRP, and therefore, these 31 days could not be excluded from the computation of the statutory period for the completion of CIRP.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the application, excluding the initial three days from the CIRP period calculation but rejecting the exclusion of the subsequent 31 days. The application was disposed of accordingly, with the matter adjourned for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely appointments and the exclusion of specific periods in the computation of the CIRP period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It also emphasizes the need to adhere to the guidelines set by higher authorities in similar cases to ensure consistency and fairness in resolution processes.

---