PIRP timelines are directory, and Adjudicating Authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to extend the process beyond 180 days.

The Appellant is the Resolution Professional (RP) for six personal guarantors of M/s. MSM Steels Private Limited.

Following the admission of Section 95 applications on 01.10.2024, the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) commenced, triggering a statutory moratorium under Section 101 of the IBC.

Although the RP filed the repayment plan on 09.01.2025 within the 120-day period prescribed by Regulation 19, the plan underwent several revisions through multiple meetings of creditors.

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

The RP filed applications seeking an extension of the PIRP period by 201 days to facilitate the adjudication of the approved plan.

However, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) dismissed these applications on 28.01.2026, holding that the Code provides no power to extend the PIRP beyond the 180-day moratorium period.

Whether the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period after the expiry of the 180-day statutory moratorium.

Whether the timeline of 120 days prescribed under Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, for filing a repayment plan is mandatory or directory.

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

It relied on Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, regarding the filing of the repayment plan.

The Tribunal followed its own precedents in *Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary*, establishing that while the moratorium cannot be extended beyond 180 days.

The PIRP itself can be extended, as seen in *Shiv Kumar Goel v. Piyush Moona*.

Finally, it applied the principle from the Supreme Court in *CoC of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta*, which struck down "mandatory" timelines in insolvency processes to favor the interest of stakeholders and value maximization.

The Appellate Tribunal distinguished between the "Moratorium" and the "Resolution Process."

It held that while Section 101(1) provides a strict outer limit for the moratorium that cannot be extended by judicial interpretive process, the Code does not impose an express bar on extending the PIRP period itself.

The Tribunal reasoned that Regulation 19, which prescribes a 120-day limit for filing the plan, is a procedural provision and must be held as directory rather than mandatory.

Using the "Pre-Package Insolvency" (PPIRP) logic from *Vikas Gautamchand Jain*, the Tribunal noted that if a repayment plan has already been approved (in this case with 100% majority), it is in the interest of all stakeholders to allow the process to conclude rather than forcing a termination.

The Tribunal found that the NCLT erred in viewing the expiry of the moratorium as the automatic termination of the NCLT's jurisdiction over the PIRP.

It held that the Adjudicating Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period even if the statutory moratorium under Section 101 has expired.

The Tribunal extended the PIRP period for all six cases until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the approved repayment plan for final adjudication under Section 114.

It clarified that this extension pertains only to the resolution process and does not revive or extend the 180-day moratorium.