The Resolution Professional has the authority under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act to seek an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate despite ongoing insolvency proceedings.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

1. This petition is in the nature of an application under Section 29A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), and has been filed by Mr. Anish Niranjan Nanavaty, who claims to be an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "NCLT"), vide order dated 25th September, 2019, to oversee the affairs of M/s. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that subsequently, vide a resolution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of the Company, passed on 22nd October, 2019, the petitioner was appointed as Resolution Professional (RP) in respect of the Company.

2. Admittedly, arbitral proceedings, between the petitioner and the respondent, were continuing before a three-member Arbitral Tribunal, and have yet to conclude. The mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal has, in the interregnum, expired. The petitioner has, in these circumstances, invoked Section 29A(5) of the 1996 Act, by means of the present petition, seeking extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal to conclude the arbitral proceedings and render award.

3. A reply to the present petition has been filed by the respondent, which is represented by Mr. Nalin Tripathi, learned counsel. Mr. Tripathi, essentially, questions the competence of the petitioner, as RP, to file the present petition on behalf of the company. Reliance has been placed, for this submission, on Section 12 of the IBC, which reads thus:

"12. Time-limit for completion of insolvency resolution process

(1) Subject to sub-section (2), the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be completed within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of admission of the application to initiate such process.

(2) The resolution professional shall file an application to the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the corporate insolvency resolution process beyond one hundred and eighty days, if instructed to do so by a resolution passed at a meeting of the committee of creditors by a vote of sixty-six per cent of the voting shares.

(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the subject matter of the case is such that corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be completed within one hundred and eighty days, it may by order extend the duration of such process beyond one hundred and eighty days by such further period as it thinks fit, but not exceeding ninety days:

Provided that any extension of the period of corporate insolvency resolution process under this section shall not be granted more than once."

4. Mr. Tripathi submits that a strict regimen is stipulated in Section 12 of the IBC, with the resolution process requiring to be completed within 180 days under sub-section (1) thereof and in default, an application to be filed by the RP, under subsection (2), seeking extension of time. In the present case, he submits, such an application was filed by the RP, being IA 941/2020, whereon the learned NCLT, vide order dated 19th March, 2020, extended the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Period (CIRP) by 90 days, commencing 24th March, 2020. Even so reckoned, submits Mr. Tripathi, the authority of Mr. Anish Niranjan Nanavaty to continue as RP expired on 22nd June, 2020. He submits that no second extensi