Mr. Purusottam Behera vs Axis Bank Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Purusottam Behera Resolution Professional of Personal Guarantor ...Appellant(s)

Versus Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohak Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somesh Chhangani, Advocate for FC. ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

21.05.2026 I.A. No. 2228 of 2026: This is an application praying for

condonation of delay of 64 days in refiling the Appeal. We find that sufficient

cause has been shown in Para 5 to 8 of the application to condonation of

delay. Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor has no objection. Application for

condonation of refiling delay is allowed.

2. Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Ld. Counsel

appearing for the Financial Creditor.

3. This Appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional of Personal

Guarantor challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in IA No. 5439 of

2025 by which the Appellant had prayed for extension of PIRP period. In the

application, the Appellant prayed for following reliefs as quoted in Para-1 of

the order:

"a) To consider the present IA of2025 under section 6D(2) of the Code;

b) To allow extension of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process Period of 90 days (beyond 120 days) period, with effect from 22nd October 2025 to 19 January 2()26, for filing an application before this Hon'ble Tribunal for consideration of Repayment Plan as submitted by Mr. Anurag P. Gupta to Maximise the value for all the Creditors;

c) To condone the delay of 28 days in filing of this application seeking extension in the PIRP period;

d) Issue such other orders as may be necessary in the matter."

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the repayment plans have

been received which were placed before the Creditors but before the repayment

plan could be considered 120 days period of PIRP came to an end. Hence, the

application was filed for extension of 90 days period which came to be rejected

by the impugned order, observing that the extension cannot be granted.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Financial Creditor does not have any objection in

extending the period of PIRP and for consideration of repayment plan

submitted by the Personal Guarantor.

6. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance the Judgement of this

Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins.) No. 258 of 2026, Purusottam Behera v. State Bank

of India, decided on 26.02.2026 where this Tribunal while considering the

similar issue has held that PIRP period can be extended and Tribunal has

jurisdiction to extend the PIRP period although the moratorium which is

statutorily fixed cannot be extended. The above Judgment fully supports the

submission of the Counsel for the Appellant. In view of the aforesaid, following

the above Judgment, we allow the Appeal and set aside the order dated

2 of 3 27.11.2025 passed in I.A. No. 5439 of 2025 and extend the PIRP period for 90

days from today. It shall be open for the RP to proceed further in accordance

with law.

8. The Appeal is disposed of.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Abhishek/Manu

3 of 3