TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Aryan Chhabra, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Akash Chatterjee, Advocate for CoC. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These appeals have been filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) of the personal guarantors, challenging the common order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Court - V, Mumbai Bench) in I.A. No.136/2026 in C.P. No.400(IB)/MB/2024 in I.A. No.137/2026 in C.P. No.717(IB)/MB/2023 in I.A. No.138/2026 in C.P. No.719(IB)/MB/2023 in I.A. No.139/2026 in C.P. No.398(IB)/MB/2024 in I.A. No.146/2026 in C.P. No. (IB)399/MB/2024 & in I.A. No.141/2026 in C.P. No.718(IB)/MB/2023. The adjudicating authority by the impugned order dismissed the application filed by the RP, by which application, RP has prayed for extension of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) period. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2026 passed in the above applications, these appeals have been filed. 2. Facts and issues arising in these appeals being common, it shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No.258/2026 for deciding these appeals. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these appeals are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt plan. On 18.12.2025, NCLT declined to take on record the RP's report under Section 112 of the IBC on the ground that application was pending adjudication. xii. On 30.12.2025, ninth meeting of the creditors was convened, wherein creditors authorised the RP by a majority of 89.36% to seek extension of the PRIP period by 201 days from 29.06.2025 to 15.01.2026 to enable procedural completion and adjudication of the approved repayment plan, in pursuance of which I.A. No.138/2026 was filed seeking condonation of delay and extension of the PIRP period, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.01.2026. xiii. Similarly, applications were filed in PIRP of other personal guarantors as noted above which were all rejected by common order dated 28.01.2026. xiv. When the appeal was taken for consideration on 05.02.2026, on which date, we passed following order: "1. All the appeals have been filed challenging the order passed on 28.01.2026 in different IAs filed by the Resolution Professional (RP), the appellant herein with respect to personal guarantees of the personal guarantors. 2. By the impugned order, adjudicating authority has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er NCLT to grant extension in respect of PIRP process. By making the above observations, the applications have been rejected. 4. We have heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. Abhijeet Sinha appearing for the appellant and Mr. Akash Chatterjee learned counsel appearing for the creditors. 5. Learned Sr. counsel Mr. Abhijeet Sinha appearing for the appellant submits that a plain reading of Section 100 to Section 115 of the IBC read with Regulation 19 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 (for short the 2019 Regulations) indicate that statute does not impose any express bar on extension of insolvency resolution period. Section 101 merely limits the duration of the moratorium to 180 days or until the order under Section 114 is passed whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the provision does not make adjudicating authority functius officio nor mandate automatic termination of the PIRP on expiry of 180 days. Although, Regulation 19 of the 2019 Regulations prescribed 120 days for filing the approved repayment plan but does not provide for abatement or nullification of proceedings in the event of delay. In the absence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is admitted under section 100, a moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one hundred and eighty days beginning with the date of admission of the application or on the date the Adjudicating Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under section 114, whichever is earlier. (2) During the moratorium period- (a) any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed; (b) the creditors shall not initiate any legal action or legal proceedings in respect of any debt; and (c) the debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein; (3) Where an order admitting the application under section 96 has been made in relation to a firm, the moratorium under sub-section (1) shall operate against all the partners of the firm. (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. 114. Order of Adjudicating Authority on repaymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ors on 07.01.2025 and certain suggestions were given with regard to repayment plan by the creditors. The 120 days of PIRP came to an end on 29.01.2025 without approval of the repayment plan. As noted above, the repayment plan remained under consideration and ultimately has been approved with 100% voting of the creditors on 06.12.2025. It is also on the record that the third meeting of creditors held on 17.05.2025 authorised the RP to file an application for seeking extension in the insolvency resolution process by 150 days. The above resolution was passed on result of the e- voting which is reflected by the report submitted by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) dated 27.06.2025 to the creditors. Paragraph 8 of the report is as follows: "8. The details / report containing, inter alia, list of creditors, who voted "For", "Against" or "Abstained from voting" on each of the resolutions put to vote, were obtained from email as per e-voting via email and the result of the e-voting is as follows: Sr. No Particulars Particulars of Votes 1 Resolution No. 1 - To seek extension in the Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors being Mrs. Manisha S Pat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered view that the Scheme of Code neither contemplates PIRP beyond moratorium nor an order for extension of time in PIRP Period. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is noted that the extension of 201 days in this PIRP process from 29.06.2025 to 15.01.2026 cannot be granted since the provisions of the Code does not empower this Tribunal to grant extension in respect of PIRP process. The Applicant may take necessary actions in compliance with the provisions of the Code and regulations." 12. The question which has come for consideration is as to whether after expiry of 180 days which is period of moratorium as under Section 101 of the IBC where Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period. In the above reference, we may refer to the judgment of this Tribunal in 'Anil Kumar' (supra). In the above case, after application was filed by the RP where the creditor has authorised the RP to file application for extending the PIRP by 90 days beyond 180 days. Application decided by the adjudicating authority on 04.12.2024. Adjudicating authority although granted extension of 90 days to complete the process, however, no views were expressed on the moratori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Moratorium when statute provides a date for cessation of the Moratorium it cannot be extended by the Adjudicating Authority or by this Tribunal against the statutory intendment under Section 101(1)." 14. The appeal was dismissed holding that the prayer for extension of moratorium cannot be allowed. The above judgment is thus a precedent on the question that moratorium period which is statutorily fixed cannot be extended by the Tribunal. In the facts of the said case, PIRP was extended by the Tribunal itself for 90 days beyond 180 days which facts have been noticed. 15. Another judgement which has been placed reliance by the counsel for the appellant is 'Shiv Kumar Goel' (supra). In the above case, where application filed by the RP for extension of PIRP by 30 days was rejected, against which order, the appeal has been filed. The facts have been noticed in paragraph 2 of the judgment, which is as follows: "2. These appeals have been against the same order dated 23.05.2025 passed in IA No. 2477 of 2025 by which order the application filed by RP to extend the time for completion of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process by 30 days have been rejected. The Personal Insolv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd again. However, there appears to be a lack of seriousness in the attitude, conduct, and approach of the parties concerned. We have developed the semblance that they are taking the procedure before this Tribunal for ride." 16. This Tribunal after noticing the minutes of the creditors who had prayed for extension of 30 days time beyond 180 days noticed that voting on the repayment plan was going on. The order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the application was held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed directing for extension by 30 days. In paragraph 6, following was held: "6. In the facts of the case where repayment plan is to be voted and voting has been going and 61% had been voted and request was only made by SBI and Union Bank of India for 30 days in response to which the application was filed. We do not approve the observations of the Adjudicating Authority that there appears to be lack of seriousness in the attitude conduct and approach of the parties concerned. The personal guarantor after having submitted repayment plan it was for the CoC to vote and take a decision thereafter. We thus are of the view that order rejecting the application cannot be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, RP has to file an Application for termination of the proceeding." 19. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.' Vs. 'Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.' reported in [(2020) 8 SCC 531], was referred to. In paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 of the judgment, following was held: "19. We may also notice the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of `Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.' Vs. `Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.' in (2020) 8 SCC 531, in which case Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 12 of the IBC. Section 12 of the IBC came to be amended by adding second proviso by Act 26/2019, which provided that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (`CIRP') shall mandatorily be completed within a period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date. The second proviso of Section 12 provides as follows: "....Provided further that the corporate insolvency resolution process shall mandatorily be completed within a period of three hundred and thirty days from the insolvency commencement date, including any extension of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here again a discretion can be exercised by the Adjudicating Authority and/or Appellate Tribunal to further extend time keeping the aforesaid parameters in mind. It is only in such exceptional cases that time can be extended, the general rule being that 330 days is the outer limit within which resolution of the stressed assets of the corporate debtor must take place beyond which the corporate debtor is to be driven into liquidation." 21. The above Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that where legislature provided for mandatorily completion of CIRP within 330 days the word "mandatory" was struck down and it was held that in appropriate cases, Adjudicating Authority shall have jurisdiction to extend the time beyond 330 days." 20. This Tribunal in paragraph 22 further held that interpretation put by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.' (supra) with respect to second proviso of Section 12 is very well applicable by interpreting the proviso of Section 54B. In the above case, various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on statutory interpretation were noticed and in paragraph 29, following was held: "....