Court dismisses Promoter/Director's extension request for Insolvency Resolution Process. Only Resolution Professional can seek extension.

The court dismissed the application by a Promoter/Director seeking an extension of time for the completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process for a Corporate Debtor. The court held that only the Resolution Professional, not the Promoter/Director, could seek an extension beyond 180 days based on the Committee of Creditors' decision. As the Applicant's filing did not comply with the Code and the Committee's resolution, it was found not maintainable and was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues:
Extension of time for completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 60 sub-section (5) Clause (c) read with Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules.

Analysis:
The Applicant, a Promoter/Director, sought an extension of time for the completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process for a Corporate Debtor. The Committee of Creditors had agreed to provide additional time for the Applicant to submit a revised settlement, but no resolution was passed seeking an extension of time under Section 12 of the Code. The Resolution Professional was supposed to file an application for the extension based on the Committee of Creditors' decision, but no such action was taken. The Applicant's filing was found to be not in accordance with the Code and the Committee's resolution, rendering it not maintainable.

The key issues for determination were whether the Applicant, as a Promoter/Director, could file the application under Section 60(5)(c) read with Section 12 of the Code and whether time could be extended for the completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Section 12(2) of the Code specifies that only the Resolution Professional can seek an extension beyond 180 days based on a 75% vote of the Committee of Creditors. The Committee had discussed the Applicant's proposed plan but did not accept it, instructing the Resolution Professional to file for an extension, which was not done. The Applicant's application did not meet the requirements of Section 12(2) and the Committee's decision, leading to its dismissal.

Regarding Section 60(5)(c) of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to decide on matters related to the Insolvency Resolution. However, in cases like extension of the resolution period, governed by Section 12, the procedural aspects of the Code must be followed. Since the Applicant did not qualify under Section 12, the Adjudicating Authority could not entertain the application. Consequently, the application by the Applicant, a Promoter/Director, was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

---