The main legal principle established is that the provisions of Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are mandatory, and any extension of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process should be based on clear indications that it would lead to the revival of the Corporate Debtor.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Mehta, J.)

The instant intra-Court writ appeal takes exception to the judgment and final order dated 22.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition, being WP(C) No.6003/2022, preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (writ petitioners) challenging the order dated 25.08.2022, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (in short, NCLT), Guwahati Bench in IA(IBC) No.60/GB/2022 in C.P.(IB) NO.18/GB/ 2021, granting further extension of 30 days (beyond the 270 days already availed), was accepted.

2. The learned Single Judge, after consideration of the material placed on record, held that the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short, IBC of 2016) were mandatory and the NCLT had no jurisdiction to extend the limitation for completion of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter, for short, referred as the CIRP) beyond the statutory period as prescribed under Section 12 of IBC of 2016.

3. For better appreciation of the controversy, the provisions contained in Section 12 of the IBC of 2016, are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:

“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.

[Provided further that 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 granted under this section and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to such resolution process of the corporate debtor:

Provided also that where the insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, such resolution process shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019]”

4. The background facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal, are noted hereinbelow.

The respondent No.1 (writ petitioner No.1, Dyna Roof Private Ltd.) is a private limited company, having its registered office in the Ri Bhoi District of Meghalaya, whereas the respondent No.2 (writ petitioner No.2, Rohin Kumar Hansaria), is the proprietor of a firm named, Steel Sales Corporation, having its office at S.J. Road, Athgaon, Guwahati. Both the respondents are unsecured financial creditors of the Corporate Debtor RSH Agro Products Limited.

At the instance of the Corporate Debtor, an insolvency proceeding was initiated under Section 10 of the IBC of 2016 before the NCLT, Guwahti, which came to be registered as C.P.(IB) No.18/GB/2021.

Vide order dated 11.02.2022, the appellant herein, Mr. Purshottam Gaggar was appointed as the Resolution Professional for the Corporate Debtor. As the proceedings could not be concluded, the proforma