The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not allow for extensions beyond stipulated periods in personal insolvency processes.

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

COURT ROOM NO. 1,

MUMBAI BENCH

Item No. 22

IA(I.B.C)/4230( MB)2025 IA(I.B.C)/4299( MB)2025 in C.P. (IB)/401(MB)2024

CORAM:

SH. PRABHAT KUMAR SH. SUSHIL MAHADEORAO KOCHEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 17.09.2025

NAME OF THE PARTIES: IA(I.B.C)/4230(MB)2025

IA(I.B.C)/4299(MB)2025 - Amit Chandrashekhar Poddar IN THE MATTER OF PROFECTUS CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

VS MSR. SEETA VASUDEO KHEMANI

Section 95(1), 60(5), 105,112, 113 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

and Rule 11

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

IA (I.B.C)/4299 (MB)2025 in C.P. (IB)/401(MB)2024

1) None present for either side, when the matter is called out.

2) In the interest of justice and to save further judicial time, we ourselves have

perused the records.

3) The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the

Applicant/Resolution Professional to place on record the First Progress Report

dt. 10.08.2025, in compliance to order dt. 03.03.2025.

4) The above said Report as prepared by the Applicant is taken on record. We

further direct the Resolution Professional, henceforth, not to file the Periodic

Reports before this Tribunal, unless required under the I & B Code or relevant Regulations made thereunder.

5) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Interlocutory Application bearing IA No. 4299 of 2025, is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Ordered Accordingly.

IA(I.B.C)/4230( MB)2025 in C.P. (IB)/401(MB)2024

1) None present for either side, when the matter is called out.

2) In the interest of justice and to save further judicial time, we ourselves have perused the records.

3) The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Applicant/Resolution Professional praying for the following reliefs:

a. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present Application and condone the delay in submitting the Report dated 4th August 2025, prepared by the Applicant under Section 105 of the Code;

b. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present Application and take on record the Report dated 4th August 2025, prepared by the Applicant under Section 105 of the Code and issue appropriate directions;

c. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the present Application and grant extension of 60 days in completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process from the date of order;

d. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass any other appropriate orders and directions, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4) The Applicant has filed the present Interlocutory Application seeking Extension of 60 Days for Completion of the Insolvency Resolution Process and also to take on record the Report dt. 04.08.2025 prepared under Section

105 of the Code.

5) In terms of Section 112(1) read with Regulation 19, the Resolution Professional was required to file the report on the meeting of creditors on the Repayment Plan within 120 days from the date of commencement of the Insolvency Resolution Process.

6) It is submitted that the Applicant has been continuously following up with the Personal Guarantor for submission of Repayment Plan, however, the Personal Guarantor, has time and again, sought extensions and has finally submitted her Repayment Plan on 9th July 2025, after multiple follow ups. Hence, due to the consistent delays and non-compliant submissions of the repayment plan by the Personal Guarantor, the RP could not file the said report within the prescribed time last date being 01.07.2025, i.e., 120 days from the commencement of the Resolution Process. In view of this delay in filing of Report is condoned.

7) It is stated that the extension is sought solely due to the procedural and substantive delays occasioned by the Personal Guarantor's repeated failures to submit a compliant plan and not on account of any omission by the Resolution Professional.

8) This Bench notices that the Code does not provide any maximum period fo