Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period despite the 180-day statutory limit on moratorium.

The Appellant, a Resolution Professional (RP), was appointed following the admission of an application under Section 95 of the IBC against personal guarantors.

The Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) commenced on 01.10.2024.

Although the statutory 180-day moratorium under Section 101 was set to expire, and the 120-day period for filing a repayment plan under Regulation 19 reached its limit on 29.01.2025, negotiations continued with the approval of the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

On 06.12.2025, the repayment plan was approved with 100% voting.

The RP filed applications (e.g., I.A. 138/2026) seeking a 201-day extension of the PIRP period and condonation of delay.

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) dismissed the applications on 28.01.2026, holding that the IBC does not empower the Tribunal to extend the PIRP beyond the 180-day moratorium period.

Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period beyond the 180-day timeline prescribed for the moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC.

Whether the timelines prescribed under Regulation 19 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, are mandatory or directory.

Section 101 of the IBC, which limits the duration of a moratorium to 180 days or the date of an order under Section 114, whichever is earlier.

Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, regarding the 120-day filing limit for repayment plans.

The precedent in *Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary*, which established that while the process can be extended, the 180-day moratorium under Section 101 is an absolute statutory limit and cannot be extended by judicial order.

The principle from *CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta*, as extended to Pre-Packaged processes in *Mr. Vikas Gautamchand Jain*, which holds that procedural timelines for resolution should be interpreted as directory rather than mandatory to prevent automatic termination of beneficial processes.

The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that while Section 101(1) provides a clear, non-extendable outer limit for the moratorium, the statute does not impose a similar mandatory bar on the resolution process itself.

The Tribunal distinguished between the cessation of legal protection (moratorium) and the life of the insolvency proceedings.

It noted that Regulation 19's 120-day requirement is a procedural/directory provision.

Relying on *Shiv Kumar Goel v. Piyush Moona*, the Tribunal observed that where a repayment plan is under active consideration or has been approved by the creditors, the NCLT should exercise discretion to extend the process to achieve the Code's objective of value maximization.

The court found that because the creditors unanimously approved the plan and supported the extension, the NCLT erred in concluding it was *functus officio* after 180 days.

It held that the PIRP period can be extended by the Adjudicating Authority in appropriate cases, even though the moratorium under Section 101 remains strictly limited to 180 days.

The Tribunal extended the PIRP period for the subject cases until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the report for final adjudication of the approved repayment plan.