Tribunal Denies Extension of CIRP Beyond 330 Days, Emphasizes IBC Section 12(3)

The Tribunal dismissed the Resolution Professional's application for extending the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period beyond 330 days, as no viable Resolution Plan had been obtained despite more than 730 days passing since the commencement of CIRP. The Committee of Creditors initially leaned towards liquidation due to the lack of a successful plan but later considered partial Resolution. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIRP period cannot be extended beyond 330 days as per Section 12(3) of the IBC, 2016, except in exceptional circumstances benefiting stakeholders, as highlighted in the Essar Steel case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Extension of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) period beyond 330 days.
2. Application for extension under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules.
3. Feasibility of Resolution Plan for Corporate Debtor Company.
4. Legal provisions under Section 12(3) of IBC, 2016.
5. Exceptional circumstances for extending CIRP period beyond 330 days.
6. Application of Supreme Court judgment in Essar Steel Vs. Satish Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of extending the CIRP period beyond 330 days as the Resolution Professional filed an application under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules seeking an extension up to 7th December 2021. The Bench noted that more than 730 days had passed since the commencement of CIRP, and even after all extensions and exclusions, over 330 days had elapsed since the Corporate Debtor Company came under CIRP.

2. The Tribunal considered the feasibility of a Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor Company, highlighting that despite efforts, no successful Resolution Plan had been obtained. The Committee of Creditors (COC) initially favored liquidation due to the lack of a viable Resolution Plan, but under pressure from home buyers, they agreed to explore partial Resolution by dividing assets into projects.

3. Legal provisions under Section 12(3) of IBC, 2016 were analyzed, emphasizing that the CIRP must be completed within 330 days from the insolvency commencement date. The Bench clarified that under the law, the CIRP period cannot be extended beyond 330 days, including all exclusions and extensions.

4. The Tribunal discussed exceptional circumstances for extending the CIRP period beyond 330 days, referencing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Essar Steel Vs. Satish Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531. The Supreme Court highlighted that while the CIRP should ideally conclude within 330 days, in exceptional cases where a short period remains for completion beyond 330 days and it benefits stakeholders, the Adjudicating Authority may consider an extension.

5. Applying the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that despite more than 730 days passing, there was no resolution in sight for the Corporate Debtor Company. As the RP and COC were only exploring resolution possibilities, the Bench dismissed the RP's application for extension, as no concrete resolution was imminent even after an extended period.

---