Appellate Tribunal Excludes Delay in Resolution Professional Appointment from CIRP Timeline

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the exclusion of a 35-day delay in appointing a Resolution Professional and an 18-day pendency period of applications, totaling 53 days, from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process timeline. This decision was based on established principles and previous precedents, ensuring efficiency within the prescribed time limits.

---

---

Issues:
Exclusion of delay in appointing Resolution Professional and period of pending applications.

Analysis:
The Appellant, as the Resolution Professional of a company, filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking exclusion of a 35-day delay in appointing the Resolution Professional and the period during which various applications were pending. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the prayer, leading to the present case. The Appellant argued that the delay in appointing a Resolution Professional resulted in a delay in the resolution process, potentially leading to liquidation if not excluded. The issue was previously addressed by the Appellate Tribunal in "Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd." where it was established that certain periods could be excluded from the total resolution process time limit of 270 days under justified reasons and unforeseen circumstances.

The Appellate Tribunal outlined various grounds for excluding intervening periods, such as when the Resolution Professional is not functioning for reasons like removal, or when the resolution process is stayed by a court of law. In the present case, as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process could not proceed due to the absence of a Resolution Professional for 35 days, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the prayer to exclude this period along with the 18-day pendency period of applications. This exclusion totaled 53 days for the purpose of counting the 180 or 270 days of the Resolution Process. The Tribunal set aside part of the impugned order while affirming the rest, disposing of the appeal with the mentioned observations and directions.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of excluding delays in appointing a Resolution Professional and periods of pending applications in the context of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The decision was based on established principles and previous precedents, allowing for the exclusion of certain periods under specific circumstances to ensure the resolution process's efficiency within the prescribed time limits.

---