2026 (4) TMI 1749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i -II in IA(IBC)/1884(CHE)/2025 that was preferred in CP(IB)/262(CHE)/2021. ii. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 206 / 2026, puts a challenge to the order of 10.03.2026 passed by the Ld. NCLT, Chennai - II in IA(IBC)/1983(CHE)/2025 as rendered in CP(IB)/260(CHE)/2021. iii. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 207 / 2026, puts a challenge to the impugned order of 10.03.2026, that was rendered by Ld. NCLT, Chennai - II in IA/(IBC)/1883(CHE)/2025 in CP(IB)/259/(CHE)/2021, and iv. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 208 / 2026, again puts a challenge to the order of 10.03.2026, that was rendered by the Ld. NCLT, Chennai - II in IA(IBC)/1882(CHE)/2025 in CP(IB)/261/(CHE)/2021. 2. The part of the order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant Company Appeal, since it happens to be common, hence, for the purposes of brevity the same is extracted here under, "This is an Application seeking exclusion of period of 208 days from 16.04.2025 to 10.11.2025 from PGIRP of Mr. B. Nirmal Kumar. The reasons are given at para 6 to 8 of the Application. Accordingly, exclusion is allowed and IA(I.B.C)/1884(CHE)/2025 is disposed of." 3. The effect ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 4929/2023, no such clear cut findings have been made in respect of OFCD which is as per existing financial literature is part-equity and part-debt and the extent of each will have to be worked out by the specific terms of Agreement in each individual case. Ld. NCLT may also determine the said aspect during the further proceedings of these company petitions." 5. If we take into consideration the observations made by us in Para 30 of the judgment as extracted above, what we observed is that the Ld. Tribunal will work out, as regards to pre-existing financial literature, as regards to the part equity and part debt and the extent of which will have to be worked out by these specific terms of agreement in each individual cases. Accordingly, we observed that the Ld. NCLT, was required to determine this aspect during the further proceedings of the Company Petitions, which was to be taken up by the Ld. Tribunal after passing of the judgment by us on 10.11.2025. 6. Accordingly, in the corresponding Company Petitions, the Respondents/Financial   Creditor   filed   the respective IAs   viz, IA(IBC)/1884(CHE)/2025, IA(IBC)/1983(CHE)/2025, IA(I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir rights because of delayed delivery of judgment under the Principle of 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit', which lays down that no right of the parties are to be affected because of the act of the court. Based upon the aforesaid pleading raised in Para 6, 7 and 8 of the Application as respectively preferred in each of the respective Company Petitions, the IAs seeking exclusion of time has been allowed by the Ld. Tribunal and an exclusion of 208 days has been granted. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has argued the controversy from various perspectives. First, he submitted that he didn't have an opportunity, to object to the said IAs because of the fact that he was not made as a party to the IA itself and that he could not file his objection to the said IA, when the matter was taken up on 10.03.2026, because the Appellants didn't have any knowledge of consideration of the IAs as detailed above. 9. We have called the cause list of the Ld. Tribunal of 10.03.2026, as against each of the Company Petitions for the said date i.e., 10.03.2026. We find that besides the above Interlocutory Applications, which were listed for consideration, there were other Interlocutory A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sonal Guarantor which shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 180 days beginning from the date of admission of Application or the date on which the Adjudicating Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under Section 114 whichever is earlier. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants argues that the time limit of 180 days is statutory in nature and it cannot be extended by Ld. NCLT by permitting exclusion of Time spent in litigation at NCLAT. However we are of the view that under the given circumstances, the time limit set under Section 101(1) of the Code relates to operation of moratorium only and would not be of any relevance for grant of exclusion of time because of the pendency of the proceedings before this Appellate Tribunal, particularly when, the exclusion of time is only a facilitator to effectively decide the PGIRP proceedings initiated under Section 95 of the Code, in the light of the directions contained in Para 30 of the judgment rendered by us in the Company Appeals, referred to herein above. Further, section 101 is titled as a 'moratorium' and any time stipulations as it has been given therein is not to be read for any purposes, other than the aspec....