Statutory period for Personal Insolvency Resolution Process is directory and extendable despite expiration of moratorium.

The Appellant, a Resolution Professional (RP), filed appeals against a common order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the NCLT Mumbai Bench.

Personal Insolvency Resolution Processes (PIRP) were initiated against several personal guarantors of M/s. MSM Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 01.10.2024.

Although Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, prescribes 120 days for filing an approved plan, and Section 101 of the IBC limits the moratorium to 180 days, the repayment plans were still under negotiation.

The Creditors eventually approved the plans with 100% voting on 06.12.2025.

The RP sought an extension of the PIRP period for 201 days to formalize the process.

The NCLT rejected the applications, holding that it lacked the power to extend the PIRP period beyond the 180-day moratorium period.

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

Whether the timelines prescribed under Regulation 19 of the 2019 Regulations are mandatory or directory in nature.

The court 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 Anil Kumar v. Mukund Choudhary, establishing that while the moratorium 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" regarding CIRP timelines, holding that Adjudicating Authorities retain discretionary power to extend timelines in the interest of stakeholders.

Regulation 19 of the IBBI (IRP for Personal Guarantors) Regulations, 2019, was interpreted as a procedural, directory provision.

The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that Section 101 of the IBC imposes a hard limit only on the moratorium (180 days), but the statute does not explicitly terminate the resolution process (PIRP) upon the expiry of that period.

Drawing a parallel with Shiv Kumar Goel v. Piyush Moona, the Tribunal noted that if a repayment plan is nearing completion or has been approved by creditors (as seen here with 100% voting), the "process" should not be stymied by procedural delays.

The Tribunal emphasized that Regulation 19 is directory because it lacks a "consequence clause" like Section 33(1) (which triggers liquidation in CIRP).

Following the Essar Steel precedent, the Tribunal held that if the delay is not attributable to the litigants and extension serves the stakeholders' interests, the NCLT possesses inherent jurisdiction to extend the process period even if the moratorium has lapsed.

It held that while the 180-day moratorium under Section 101 cannot be extended, the PIRP period itself can be extended to facilitate the completion of the resolution.

The Tribunal extended the PIRP period until 15.03.2026 to allow the RP to submit the report for the Adjudicating Authority to pass orders on the already approved 100% repayment plan.