Adjudicating Authority possesses jurisdiction to extend Personal Insolvency Resolution Process period beyond statutory timelines.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. MSM Steels Pvt. Ltd. was initiated in 2019, with a resolution plan approved on 10.11.2023.

State Bank of India filed applications under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against several personal guarantors, including Ms. Manisha S. Patil, on 04.07.2023.

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) admitted the applications on 01.10.2024, triggering the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) and a 180-day moratorium under Section 101.

On 06.12.2025, a repayment plan was approved with 100% voting share by the Committee of Creditors (CoC).

The Resolution Professional (RP) moved applications (I.A. No. 138/2026) seeking an extension of the PIRP period by 201 days to facilitate procedural completion.

On 28.01.2026, the NCLT dismissed the applications, holding it had no power to extend the PIRP period beyond the 180-day moratorium.

Whether the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to extend the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) period beyond the 180-day statutory moratorium.

Whether the failure to comply with the 120-day timeline for filing a repayment plan under Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, leads to automatic termination of proceedings.

The court primarily applied Section 101 of the IBC, which mandates that the moratorium ceases at the end of 180 days or upon an order under Section 114.

It relied on Regulation 19 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019, which prescribes a 120-day period for filing approved plans.

The Tribunal applied the principle from *Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary*, which held that while the moratorium cannot be extended, the process itself may continue.

It further utilized the precedent from *Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta*, striking down "mandatory" timelines as directory in exceptional cases to prevent arbitrary termination of the resolution process.

The Appellate Tribunal clarified the distinction between the "moratorium" under Section 101 and the "process period" for PIRP.

It held that while Section 101 provides a hard limit for the moratorium (180 days) which cannot be extended by judicial order, the IBC does not prescribe an automatic termination or "death" of the PIRP thereafter.

The Tribunal reasoned that Regulation 19, which sets a 120-day timeline, is procedural and directory rather than mandatory, as it lacks a consequence clause for non-compliance.

Drawing a parallel to CIRP and Pre-Package Insolvency (PPIRP) jurisprudence, the Tribunal noted that the NCLT retains jurisdiction to extend timelines in the interest of stakeholders, especially when a repayment plan has already achieved 100% approval and only procedural completion remains.

The Tribunal found the NCLT's refusal to exercise discretion as legally erroneous, as the statute does not make the NCLT *functus officio* upon the expiry of 180 days.

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period even if the moratorium has expired.

The PIRP period was specifically extended until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the approved repayment plan for the NCLT's final adjudication under Section 114.

However, the Tribunal reaffirmed that this extension does not revive or extend the statutory 180-day moratorium.