JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. The appellant – “Financial Creditor” has preferred this appeal for modification of order dated 27th April, 2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in C.P. (IB) No. 97/7/HDB/2017 relevant portion of which reads as follows :

“In CP (IB) 97/7/HDB/2017 as stated supra, several applications are pending for adjudication by this Authority. There is no scope of adjudicating all the above applications before the expiry of 270 days. Therefore, taking into consideration the decisions stated supra relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Financial creditors and the fact that CIRP could not be taken up nearly about 160 days because of various interim orders passed by this Authority and in view of the pendency of above said applications for adjudicating, there is an urgent need to pass interim order to extend the CIRP period atleast till the next date of hearing. All the Counsels appearing for all the parties represented that it would be convenient for them to advance their arguments for final hearing of pending applications only on 15.05.2018 but not before that date. Hence, the CIRP period is extended till 15.05.2018. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Financial Creditors made a statement that in case the CIRP is extended for a considerable period, they have no objection to accept the Expression of Interest (EOI) submitted by the Resolution Applicants even after the expiry of the date fixed for receiving EOI.

This Interim Order is passed in CA 93/2018 extending the CIRP period till 15.05.2018, subject to the orders of the Hon’ble NCLAT in the Appeal pending before it. Registry is directed to list all the pending Applications including CA93/2018 for final hearing on 15.05.2018.”

2. Further prayer has been made to direct the Adjudicating Authority to exclude the period from 15th September, 2017 to 28th February, 2018 for counting the total period of 180 days + 90 days (total 270 days) as ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ could not proceed during the aforesaid period on account of interim directions passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that for about 166 days, the ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ remained stayed due to interim order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of interim order no meeting of ‘Committee of Creditors’ could take place during the pendency of C.A. No. 197 of 2017 which was filed by one of the Director of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ challenging the constitution of ‘Committee of Creditors’. The order of stay was vacated only on 28th February, 2018 whereinafter further ‘corporate insolvency resolution process’ could proceed.

4. The appellant has brought on record the time chart to suggest the delay, as took place as follows:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ‘Resolution Professional’ also requested to exclude the period of 166 days for the purpose of counting the total period of resolution process.

6. Similar