### Statutory 180-day moratorium is mandatory, but PIRP timelines are directory and extendable for approval.

The Appellant is the Resolution Professional (RP) for several 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 180-day moratorium under Section 101.

Although a repayment plan was submitted on 07.01.2025 and first discussed on 22.01.2025, the 120-day period for filing the plan under Regulation 19(1) expired on 29.01.2025.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) subsequently approved the repayment plan with 100% voting on 06.12.2025 and authorized the RP to seek an extension of the PIRP period to 15.01.2026 to facilitate adjudication.

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Mumbai) dismissed the extension applications on 28.01.2026, ruling that the Code 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 statutory moratorium period under Section 101.

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

The court applied Section 101 of the IBC, which limits the duration of the moratorium to 180 days or until an order under Section 114 is passed.

It relied on Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, regarding the 120-day timeline for filing approved plans.

The court followed the precedent in Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary, which held that while the moratorium under Section 101 cannot be extended, the process itself may continue.

It further applied the principle from Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, which struck down the word "mandatorily" in Section 12 of the IBC to allow extensions in exceptional cases to ensure the interest of stakeholders.

The Appellate Tribunal clarified the distinction between the "moratorium" and the "resolution process."

It reasoned that while Section 101(1) of the IBC sets a firm outer limit of 180 days for the moratorium, the statute does not explicitly mandate the termination of the PIRP itself upon the expiry of that period.

The Tribunal noted that Regulation 19, which prescribes 120 days for filing the plan, contains no consequence clause for delay and is therefore procedural and directory rather than mandatory.

Drawing a parallel with PPIRP and CIRP judgments, the Tribunal held that if a repayment plan has already achieved 100% approval from creditors, it is in the best interest of all stakeholders to allow a short extension to complete the legal process rather than forcing the debtor into bankruptcy.

The Tribunal found that the NCLT erred in concluding it was functus officio after 180 days.

The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority possesses the jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period for sufficient cause, even though the moratorium under Section 101 cannot be extended beyond 180 days.

Given that the repayment plans were already approved by 100% of the creditors, the PIRP period was extended until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the report for final adjudication under Section 114.