Prospective operation of Section 10A and directory CIRP timelines allowed the resolution process to continue despite lockdown delay.

Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operated prospectively and barred only fresh insolvency filings for defaults occurring after 25.03.2020, so it did not stop a corporate insolvency resolution process already admitted before that date. The Section 12 and Regulation 40A timelines were treated as directory rather than mandatory, and mere delay did not make the process a nullity or prevent the resolution professional and committee of creditors from proceeding. The COVID-19 lockdown period was excluded under Regulation 40C as an extraordinary impediment, and the ongoing resolution process was permitted to continue without suspension.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred continuation of an already initiated corporate insolvency resolution process. (ii) Whether the timelines prescribed for the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Regulation 40A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 were mandatory so as to render the process a nullity on alleged delay. (iii) Whether the period affected by the COVID-19 lockdown could be excluded while considering completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process and extension of time.

Issue (i): Whether Section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 barred continuation of an already initiated corporate insolvency resolution process.

Analysis: Section 10A was held to operate prospectively and to bar only the filing of fresh applications for insolvency on defaults occurring after 25.03.2020. It did not apply to a corporate insolvency resolution process that had already been admitted before that date. The explanation to the provision also excluded defaults committed before 25.03.2020 from its scope.

Conclusion: Section 10A did not assist the applicant, and the pending corporate insolvency resolution process could not be suspended on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the timelines prescribed for the corporate insolvency resolution process under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Regulation 40A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 were mandatory so as to render the process a nullity on alleged delay.

Analysis: The outer time limit for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process was treated as directory rather than mandatory, following the principle that exceptional circumstances may justify extension where delay is not attributable to the parties. On that basis, a mere lapse of time did not invalidate the proceedings or divest the resolution professional or committee of creditors of authority to proceed.

Conclusion: The alleged breach of timelines did not render the proceedings a nullity and did not justify suspension of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Issue (iii): Whether the period affected by the COVID-19 lockdown could be excluded while considering completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process and extension of time.

Analysis: The COVID-19 lockdown was treated as an extraordinary impediment affecting performance of insolvency activities. Regulation 40C was regarded as an enabling provision that excluded the lockdown period from computation of timelines, and the record showed that the resolution professional had proceeded diligently despite the disruptions.

Conclusion: The lockdown period was liable to be excluded, and no interference was warranted with the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on all substantive grounds, and the corporate insolvency resolution process was permitted to continue without suspension.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10A has prospective operation only, while the insolvency resolution timeline is generally directory and may be adjusted in exceptional circumstances, including exclusion of COVID-19 lockdown period, where the delay is not attributable to the parties.

---