Resolution Professional's Authority to Seek Extension Confirmed by Supreme Court

The Adjudicating Authority rejected an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), stating that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to grant such an extension. Despite a previous extension by the Appellate Tribunal and a subsequent withdrawal of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Resolution Professional was denied the extension. The Supreme Court clarified that the Resolution Professional, acting on the Committee of Creditors' instructions, was authorized to seek an extension. Consequently, both appeals were allowed, overturning the Adjudicating Authority's decision and granting a 60-day extension for voting on pending Resolution Plans.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the rejection of an application for extension of time in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by the Adjudicating Authority, based on the grounds that only the Appellate Tribunal had the authority to extend the time. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the instruction of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) to allow consideration and voting on the Resolution Plan.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the application for extension of 60 days from the expiry of CIRP, citing that the Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the time till a certain date. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn with liberty granted to apply for an extension. However, the liberty was granted to specific individuals, not the Resolution Professional who filed the application.

2. The Resolution Professional filed the application on the CoC's instruction, as two plans were already received and needed to be voted upon. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was based on the technicality of the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court, rather than considering the CoC's decision.

3. The Appellate Tribunal had previously extended the CIRP for 90 days, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted liberty to specific individuals to apply for an extension, but it did not restrict the Resolution Professional from seeking an extension.

4. The judgment emphasized that the Resolution Professional, being the official conducting the CIRP, was authorized to apply for an extension of time, especially when instructed by the CoC. The rejection solely based on the individuals granted liberty by the Supreme Court was deemed unjust, considering the plans awaiting voting.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and granting the extension of 60 days from the date of the judgment. The decision aimed to serve the ends of justice, especially with pending Resolution Plans that required voting within the extended period.

This summary highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made in the judgment regarding the rejection of the application for extension of time in the CIRP.

---