Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 378

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J
Purusottam Behera (Resolution Professional for Mrs. Manisha S Patil) – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 258 of 2026|Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 259 of 2026|Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 260 of 2026|Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 261 of 2026|Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 262 of 2026|Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 292 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Amar Vivek, Ms. Damini Srestha, Mr. Anant Jain, Mr. Aryan Chhabra
For the Respondents: Mr. Akash Chatterjee

PIRP extendable beyond 180-day moratorium limit under Section 101 IBC, which cannot be extended; Regulation 19 timelines directory, enabling adjudication of creditor-approved repayment plans.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 100, 101, 114, 115 - IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019 - Regulation 19 - Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) - Extension of PIRP period beyond 180 days moratorium under Section 101 - Moratorium limited to 180 days from admission or order under Section 114 whichever earlier, cannot be extended - However, PIRP period not statutorily limited to 180 days; Regulation 19 timeline for filing approved repayment plan directory, not mandatory - No automatic termination on expiry; adjudicating authority retains jurisdiction to extend PIRP post-moratorium where repayment plan approved by creditors, to facilitate adjudication - Relied on prior precedents distinguishing moratorium from process extension. (Paras 10, 17, 21)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Timelines without consequence clauses procedural and directory - Scheme retains adjudicating authority jurisdiction until repayment plan adjudication under Section 114 - Extension permissible in appropriate cases post-180 days, without extending moratorium. (Paras 17-21)

Facts of the case:
Resolution Professional filed applications seeking 201 days extension of PIRP beyond expiry, after 100% creditor approval of repayment plan via e-voting, though filed beyond 120 days under Regulation 19. Adjudicating authority dismissed, holding no power to extend PIRP as moratorium ends at 180 days without extension provision. Appeals by RP against common order in multiple PIRPs of personal guarantors linked to same corporate debtor.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside; PIRP extended till 15.03.2026 for RP to submit report enabling order on approved repayment plan. Moratorium not extended.

Issues: Whether adjudicating authority empowered to extend PIRP beyond 180 days moratorium expiry despite Regulation 19(1) 120-day timeline; distinction between moratorium cessation and PIRP continuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Moratorium under Section 101 strictly 180 days maximum, non-extendable; PIRP extendable as no statutory bar or automatic termination, timelines directory absent consequences; authority retains jurisdiction for repayment plan approval where creditors authorize extension post-approval.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. consolidated appeals by rp challenging dismissal of pirp extension. (Para 1 , 2)
2. timeline of cirp, section 95 applications, pirp admission, and plan submission. (Para 3)
3. parties' submissions on pirp extension post-moratorium. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. moratorium limited to 180 days; regulation 19 directory. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. no extension of moratorium; pirp extension possible per anil kumar. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. pirp extension allowed despite moratorium expiry per shiv kumar. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. timelines directory; extension jurisdiction per essar steel. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. pirp extended to 15.03.2026; appeals allowed. (Para 22 , 23)

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:

i. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor M/s. MSM Steels Private Limited was initiated on 17.09.2019. Resolution Plan was approved on 10.11.2023. State Bank of India (SBI) has filed an application under Section 95 C.P. (IB) No.719/MB/2023 against the personal guarantor Ms. Manisha S. Patil on 04.07.2023. SBI has filed different Section 95 application against other personal guarantors.

ii. Appellant, Purusottam Behera was appointed RP by the adjudicating authority on 12.07.2023. RP submitted a report recommending admission and commencement of PIRP against the personal guarantors.

iii. By order dated 01.10.2024, Section 95 application was admitted under Section 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the Code or the IBC) triggering the moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC. RP issued public notice on 10.10.2024 for inviting claims.

iv. On 07.01.2025, personal guarantors submitted a repayment plan to the RP. RP filed repayment plan along with the report under Section 106 of the IBC before the NCLT by way of I.A. No. 9638/2025 on 09.01.2025.

v. On 22.01.2025, first meeting of the creditors was convened in which deliberations took place with revised plan.

vi. On 29.01.2025 statutory period of 120 days from commencement of the PIRP expired in terms of Regulation 19(1) of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019.

vii. On 24.02.2025, NCLT passed an order taking on record the repayment plan and the report under Section 106. RP convened the second meeting of the creditors on 11.03.2025 and third meeting of creditors on 17.05.2025.

viii. On 17.05.2025, third meeting of creditors authorised the RP to seek extension of PIRP period by 150 days beyond 29.01.2025, to facilitate effective negotiations and finalisation of the repayment plan. RP filed I.A. No.3510/2025 before the NCLT seeking extension of period of 150 days.

ix. Fourth meeting of creditors was held on 18.08.2025. Final revised repayment plan was submitted on 22.08.2025.

x. In the eighth meeting of the creditors, RP informed that repayment plan stood finalised in substance. It was resolved to place the repayment plan for e-voting under Section 111 of the IBC.

xi. On 06.12.2025, e-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 378

PIRP extendable beyond 180-day moratorium limit under Section 101 IBC, which cannot be extended; Regulation 19 timelines directory, enabling adjudication of creditor-approved repayment plans.

Cases Referred (1)