PIRP timelines are directory; Adjudicating Authority may extend the process beyond one hundred eighty days.

The Resolution Professional (RP), acting for several personal guarantors of the Corporate Debtor (M/s. MSM Steels Pvt. Ltd.), challenged a common order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor concluded with an approved plan in 2023, while insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantors (PIRP) were admitted 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(1) of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, had lapsed on 29.01.2025, the creditors ultimately approved the repayment plan with a 100% majority on 06.12.2025

The RP sought an extension of the PIRP period for 201 days to facilitate the adjudication of the approved plan, but the NCLT dismissed the application, holding it lacked the 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 moratorium provided under Section 101 of the IBC.

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

The court applied Section 101 of the IBC, which limits the duration of the moratorium to 180 days from the date of admission

It further interpreted Sections 114 and 115 regarding the approval of repayment plans

The court relied on its previous ruling in *Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary*, which held that while the 180-day moratorium cannot be extended, the process itself is distinct from the moratorium

It also applied the principle from *Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta*, where the Supreme Court struck down the word "mandatorily" regarding CIRP timelines, holding that Adjudicating Authorities retain the discretion to extend timelines in exceptional cases to ensure the resolution of stressed assets

The Appellate Tribunal clarified the distinction between the "moratorium" under Section 101 and the "process" of insolvency resolution.

It observed that while Section 101(1) provides a strict outer limit of 180 days for the moratorium, the IBC does not contain an express provision mandating the automatic termination of the PIRP solely because that period has lapsed

The Tribunal noted that Regulation 19 of the 2019 Regulations, which requires the filing of a plan within 120 days, is a procedural and directory provision rather than a mandatory one

Drawing a parallel with Pre-Packaged Insolvency (PPIRP) and CIRP, the Tribunal reasoned that since 100% of the creditors had already approved the repayment plan, it would be contrary to the objectives of the Code—specifically value maximization and resolution—to terminate the proceedings on a technicality

The Tribunal emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised to prevent the process from becoming *functus officio* when a viable resolution is available

It held that the Adjudicating Authority has the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period even if the 180-day moratorium cannot be extended

The Tribunal granted an extension of the PIRP period until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the report for formal approval of the repayment plan by the Adjudicating Authority