Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 813
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Judicial Member, Naresh Salecha, Technical Member
Indian Bank – Appellant
Versus
Sneha Dharmendra Shah – Respondent
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1454 of 2026 | Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1457 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ritesh D. Patadia
For the Respondents: Sumit Parikh
The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority should extend the PIRP period if a repayment plan is in-principle approved by the financial creditor and only formal internal approvals are pending, as the primary purpose of PIRP is the repayment of the loan to the creditor.
Headnote:(A) Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) - Extension of Time - Where a repayment plan is in-principle approved by the financial creditor and only formal approval from the competent authority is pending, the Adjudicating Authority should grant a reasonable extension of time to facilitate the completion of the process and the repayment of the loan. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the extension of the PIRP period should be granted when a repayment plan has been in-principle approved by the financial creditor but awaits formal internal approval.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against the nclt's rejection of applications for extension of the pirp period. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's contention that the repayment plan was in-principle approved and only formal internal bank approval was pending. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents' and rp's agreement on the necessity of the extension to facilitate the settlement. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. the court's reasoning that the purpose of pirp is loan repayment, justifying an extension when a plan is in-principle approved. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. setting aside the impugned orders and granting a 45-day extension for the pirp process. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Oral)]
1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsels for the Respondent No. 1 and 2. Perused the record.
2. The CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1454 of 2026 has been preferred by the Appellant –Indian Bank against the impugned order dated 08.07.2026 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad in IA/1034(AHM)2026 moved in CP (IB)/127(AHM)2025 and CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1457 of 2026 has been moved by appellant against the impugned order of the same date passed in IA/1035(AHM)2026 moved in CP (IB)/125(AHM)2025 whereby the request of the Appellant-Bank for extension of time has been rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that on an application filed by the Appellant-Indian Bank under Section 95 of the Code the PIRP was started against the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Personal Guarantor vide order dated 20.02.2026 passed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority and the Resolution Professional of the Personal Guarantor was appointed.
4. It is further submitted that public announcement was accordingly made on 27.02.2026 and the last of date of submission of claims was filed on 19.03.2026.
5. It is further submitted that after collating the claims, the CoC was constituted and the first meeting of the creditors was held on 02.04.2026 which was incidentally adjourned to 06.04.2026 and after a lot of negotiations ultimately in the 4th meeting of the creditor held on 05.05.2026 which was adjourned to 29.05.2026 the guarantor submitted a combined re-payment plan of Rs. 3,27,50,000/- plus PIRP cost to be paid within 90 days and having regard to the submission of plan the sole member of the creditor suggested for vetting the re-payment plan and took some time.
6. It is further submitted that the 5th meeting of the creditor was held on 26.06.2026 wherein the RP proposed to approve or reject the repayment plan as submitted by the Personal Guarantor and the sole member of creditor resolved to extend the PIRP period for another 60 days beyond 120 days from 21.06.2026 which had earlier expired on 20.06.2026. Considering that the financial creditor in principle has approved the Resolution Plan and certain approvals are required from the Competent Authority and also that the e- voting may take some days and in the meantime the creditor suggested that the RP may put the re-payment plan on e-voting till 06.07.2026 and the RP was requested to file an appropriate application for PIRP extension before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.
7. It is further submitted that in pursuance of this decision two applications being IA No. 1034/2026 and IA No. 1035/2026 were separately filed in aforesaid petitions by the RP which have been rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority by passing the impugned orders of date 08.07.2026.
8. It is vehemently submitted that the Bank in Principle has approved the re-payment plans submitted by the guarantors and it was only the approval was required and the time was also required by the Bank for getting the approval of appropriate authority and also for the purpose of e-voting, however the Ld. Adjudicating Authority without considering these facts in right perspective, passed an order rejecting the request of the RP for extension of the PIRP’s.
9. It is thus requested that further 60 days be provided for the comple
