Anil Kumar Vs Mukund Choudhary (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that as per expressed provisions of section 101(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 moratorium period cannot be extended beyond 180 days. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Facts- On an Application filed u/s. 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Personal Guarantor, Respondent herein, Adjudicating Authority passed an Order on 08.04.2021, declaring Interim Moratorium in terms of Section 96 of the IBC. By the same Order, the Appellant herein was appointed the Resolution Professional.
Appellant filed a Report u/s. 99 of the IBC, which Report was considered by the Adjudicating Authority and by Order dated 30.04.2024, Section 94 Application filed by the Personal Guarantor was admitted and Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) was initiated as per the Order dated 30.04.2024, fresh Moratorium in terms of Section 101 was to commence which was contemplated to cease to have effect at the end of period of 180 days.
On 28.10.2024, RP was authorised to file an appropriate Application for extending PIRP by 90 days beyond 180 days. Appellant thereafter filed an application seeking extension of the PIRP by 90 days beyond 180 days, which Application came to be rejected by Adjudicating Authority. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Want to Read the Complete Judgment?
You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.
Already subscribed? Log in
One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.
