Exclusion of CIRP time may be granted when registry non-communication of the appointment order causes procedural delay.

In CIRP, inadvertent non-communication of the tribunal's appointment order to the insolvency resolution professional or corporate debtor can justify exclusion of the intervening period where the lapse is attributable to the registry and not the parties. The adjudicating authority may grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances to prevent the resolution process from being defeated by a procedural omission, applying the principle that an act of the court should prejudice no one. The exclusion of time was therefore upheld, and the challenge to the order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period of corporate insolvency resolution process could be excluded and the application for commencement or continuation of the process could be sustained where the tribunal order appointing the insolvency resolution professional was not communicated to him by the registry, and whether such exclusion was permissible under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The order under challenge proceeded on the footing that the earlier appointment order had not been communicated to the insolvency resolution professional or the corporate debtor due to inadvertence of the registry. The non-communication prevented the resolution professional from taking charge and commencing work. In such circumstances, the tribunal held that the resolution professional was entitled to seek appropriate directions for exclusion of the intervening period, and the adjudicating authority was competent to grant relief in extraordinary circumstances to ensure that the insolvency resolution process was not defeated by a procedural lapse not attributable to the parties. The principle that an act of the court should prejudice no one was applied to justify exclusion of the lost period and continuation of the process.

Conclusion: The exclusion of time and the consequential relief were upheld, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal affirmed that inadvertent non-communication of the appointment order could justify exclusion of the intervening period for CIRP purposes, and the appeal was not maintainable on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where delay in the insolvency resolution process is caused by an inadvertent omission of the court registry in communicating the appointment order, the adjudicating authority may exclude the affected period so that procedural lapse of the court does not prejudice the process or the parties.

---