National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Allows Resolution Professional's Appeal for Exclusion of Days in CIRP Timeline. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of excluding time to prevent triggering liquidation under Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) regarding the exclusion of 87 days from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeline. The appellant, Vivek Bansal, acting as the Resolution Professional for Senior Builders Ltd., filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) to exclude the specified period due to a delay caused by the removal of the erstwhile Resolution Professional. The NCLT had previously rejected this application, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that without the exclusion, the CIRP period would exceed the statutory limit of 330 days, leading to automatic liquidation of the Corporate Debtor, which is contrary to the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding liquidation being a last resort. The authorized representative of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) supported the appeal. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLT's order, and granted the exclusion of the 87 days, emphasizing the importance of preserving the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. The pending application was also disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Exclusion of Time - Application for Exclusion of 87 Days - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12(2) - The appellant sought exclusion of 87 days from the CIRP timeline to prevent exceeding the maximum period allowed, which could trigger liquidation. The court held that exclusion was necessary to preserve the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and set aside the impugned order rejecting the application (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the period of 87 days should be excluded from the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeline.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the exclusion of 87 days from the CIRP timeline was granted.

Law Points

  • Insolvency proceedings
  • exclusion of time
  • Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
  • liquidation as last resort
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 69

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 991 of 2026

2026-06-03

Justice Yogesh Khanna, Mr. Naresh Salecha

Mr. Anup Kumar, Mr. Amit Prakash, Mr. Sumit Shukla

Vivek Bansal

Sumit Shukla IP Authorized Representative Committee of Creditors in Class

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the rejection of an application for exclusion of time in insolvency proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Exclusion of 87 days from the CIRP timeline.

Filing Reason

To prevent exceeding the maximum CIRP period and triggering liquidation.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT had dismissed the application for exclusion of time.

Issues

Whether the exclusion of 87 days from the CIRP timeline is justified.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that exclusion was necessary to avoid triggering liquidation. The authorized representative of the CoC supported the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that excluding the 87 days was essential to prevent the CIRP period from exceeding the statutory limit, thereby avoiding automatic liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is against an impugned order dated 22.04.2026 the appeal is allowed. The impugned order in so far as it has dismissed the application of the appellant for excluding the period of 87 days from the CIRP, is set aside.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application under Section 12(2) of the IBC, which was rejected by the NCLT, leading to this appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 12(2)
  • CIRP Regulations, 2016: Regulation 40
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Adverse ACR Where Reporting and Reviewing Officer Were Same — Violation of Natural Justice. Confidential remarks set aside as the reviewing officer, being the same person as the reporting officer, failed to provide indepe...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Plaintiff's Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application for Appointment of Commissioner in Suit for Specific Performance. Court holds that appointment of commissioner for measurement of suit property is not pe...