2026 (3) TMI 92 - AT - IBC

Exclusion of CIRP timelines where project segregation and negotiations prevented issuing Form G, permitting period to be excluded.

The article addresses exclusion of a specified period from CIRP timelines where project-wise segregation and ongoing project-specific negotiations ... Exclusion of time from CIRP timelines - sufficient cause for extension/exclusion - project-wise segregation from CIRP - publication of Form G and withholding pending project segregation - role of Resolution Professional's statement in pausing proceedingsExclusion of time from CIRP timelines - sufficient cause for extension/exclusion - project-wise segregation from CIRP - publication of Form G and withholding pending project segregation - Exclusion of the period 12.06.2024 till 21.11.2025 from the CIRP timelines was rightly required and IA No.410 of 2026 seeking such exclusion is to be allowed. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Tribunal examined the Resolution Professional's application which explained that proceedings were effectively stalled because the CoC took a project-wise approach and the RP awaited resolution/segregation of the CHD Vann project before issuing Form G. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected exclusion on the ground that orders were reserved but an order was pronounced on 21.11.2025; the Tribunal found this approach to be in error. Having regard to the insolvency of a real estate corporate debtor carrying multiple projects and to the RP's recorded statement that Form G would not be issued pending further instructions, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was attributable to factors beyond the RP's control and that segregation of the project on 21.11.2025 removed the impediment. The Tribunal therefore held that sufficient cause was made out to exclude the stated period and that the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the exclusion application was erroneous. [Paras 8, 9]IA No.410 of 2026 is allowed; order dated 20.02.2026 is set aside and the period 12.06.2024 till 21.11.2025 is excluded from the CIRP timelines.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the Adjudicating Authority's order rejecting the application to exclude the period during which project-wise segregation and related withholding of Form G delayed the CIRP is set aside and exclusion is granted. Issues: Whether the period from 12.06.2024 to 21.11.2025 should be excluded from the CIRP timelines by allowing IA No.410 of 2026 challenging the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of the exclusion application.Analysis: The dispute concerns an insolvency proceeding of a real estate corporate debtor with multiple projects where project-wise segregation affected the ability to proceed with the CIRP and to issue Form G. The Resolution Professional relied on CoC resolutions and events relating to negotiation and settlement for the CHD Vann project, and on the fact that the project was segregated by order dated 21.11.2025. The Adjudicating Authority rejected exclusion because hearings had occurred and orders were pronounced on 21.11.2025; however, the record shows substantive impediments arising from ongoing project-specific negotiations and the need to await segregation and related instructions before issuing Form G. The appellate court found these facts sufficient to constitute causes beyond the control of the Resolution Professional that prevented timely progress of the CIRP and justified exclusion of the specified period.Conclusion: IA No.410 of 2026 is allowed and the period from 12.06.2024 to 21.11.2025 is excluded from the CIRP timelines, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 20.02.2026; appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.