Ms Uma Goel vs Piyush Moona
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 977 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority may not reject an application by a resolution professional for a short extension of the personal insolvency resolution process, under the power to extend the process, on the ground of perceived lack of seriousness or conduct of the parties, where the application was made on a resolution of the committee of creditors, voting on the repayment plan was substantially underway (about 61% of votes cast), and the extension was sought because certain financial creditors required time to obtain internal approvals; such a rejection is not sustainable and may be set aside, with the extension granted for completion of voting.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Shiv Kumar Goel ...Appellants Versus Piyush Moona (RP) & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. P. Nagesh Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Saxena, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocates. For Respondents : CA Piyush Moona, RP in person, Mr. Vinod Kr. Chaurasiya, Advocates for RP for Respondent no.1. Ms. Reema Khorana with Ms. Poonam for Respondent No.2/ CBI.
WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 978 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF: Uma Goel ...Appellants Versus Piyush Moona (RP) & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. P. Nagesh Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Saxena, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocates. For Respondents : CA Piyush Moona, RP in person, Mr. Vinod Kr. Chaurasiya, Advocates for RP for Respondent no.1. Ms. Reema Khorana with Ms. Poonam for Respondent No.2/ CBI.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.07.2025: Heard counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the
Resolution Professional and Ld. Counsel for the Central Bank of India
representing the CoC in both the appeals.
2. These appeals have been against the same order dated 23.05.2025
passed in IA No. 2477 of 2025 by which order the application filed by RP to
extend the time for completion of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process by
30 days have been rejected. The Personal Insolvency Resolution Process
against the personal guarantor commenced on 10.07.2024. Personal
Guarantor has submitted a repayment plan on 10.10.2024 and the meeting of
CoC was called by the RP. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there
are large number of Financial Creditors i.e; Banks who had to vote on the
repayment plan and on the request received from FCs the Adjudicating
Authority was requested to extend the period and the Adjudicating Authority
has extended the period for completion of personal insolvency resolution
Process till 19th May, 2025. It is submitted that 11th CoC Meeting was
convened on 15.05.2025 which noticed that voting has already commenced
from 10.03.2025 and about 61% of members have cast their votes and 39% of
members were still to cast their votes. State Bank of India and the Union
Bank requested for 30 days more time to complete their voting on account of
new policy which was introduced. Under the heading "to consider filing of
timeline extension application in view of voting time required by sub-creditors
delayed detailed deliberation took place" it was notice in the minutes that to
facilitate further extension of the voting period PIRP must be extended by the
additional 30 days and the current PIRP period is scheduled to conclude on
19.05.2025. The Central Bank has suggested to put the resolution for
extending the PIRP period to vote and the said resolution was approved
resolving to seek extension by 30 days. Consequent, to said resolution passed
2 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025 on 15.05.2025 application was filed by the RP for extension. The prayer was
to grant extension, in application was filed by the RP following prayer was
made:-
"Prayer:-
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
i. Grant extension of 4th extension of 30 days from 20.05.2025 till 19.06.2025 in the PIRP period to vote on the resolution plan and submit his report in terms of section 112 of IBC, 2016;
ii. Pass such order or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
which application came to be rejected by the impugned order.
Adjudicating Authority while rejecting the application has made observations
at pg-46:-
"we have already shown enough indulgence in extending the period of IRP time and again. However, there appears to be a lack of seriousness in the attitude, conduct, and approach of the parties concerned. We have developed the semblance that they are taking the procedure before this Tribunal for ride."
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that present is not a case where
there was any lack of seriousness in the attitude and conduct of the parties.
The application was filed on the resolution of the committee of creditors to
seek extension of 30 days since voting on the repayment plan was not
concluded although 61% members of committee of creditors already voted. It
is submitted that in view of the rejection of the application voting could not be
concluded and left inconclusive. It is submitted that 30 days period was
3 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025 required for conclusion of voting and final decision of the resolution plan and
by rejection of the application both personal guarantor and the financial
creditor shall be put to prejudice.
4. We have considered submissions made by the counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
5. The minutes of the 15th CoC meeting has been brought on the record,
on 15.05.2025 the detailed discussion was noticed, Union Bank of India and
State Bank of India has prayed for extension of 30 days since they could not
obtain necessary approval for voting due to the new policy implemented in the
bank. It was on the request of the Union Bank of India and State Bank of
India that decision was taken to seek extension for 30 days and it was also
noticed in the minutes that 61% of committee of creditors had already voted
and only 39% of voters need to be noticed. It is useful to extract following
discussions:-
"The current voting period which was initially set to get over until 8:00 PM on 13th May 2025 was extended until 7:00 PM on 16th May 2025. To facilitate a further extension of the voting period, the PIRP must be extended by an additional 30 days, as the current PIRP period is scheduled to conclude on 19th May 2025. Therefore, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) is required to deliberate and decide on the proposed extension of the PIRP process.
The RP informed the members that, as of the current date, approximately 61 % of the members have cast their votes. The RP emphasized that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) must decide on the extension of the PIRP process and formally vote on the matter in writing. Upon receiving the CoC's decision, the voting timeline will be extended accordingly, subject to approval by the Hon'ble NCLT. To facilitate this process, a resolution will be circulated to the 4 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025 members, who are requested to respond in writing so that the decision can be duly recorded.
The RP presented the current voting status as on the date of the current meeting which is reproduced below:
...........
SBI inquired about the pending votes, to which the RP clarified that only SBI and Union Bank and some other unsecured creditors, are yet to cast their votes, representing approximately 39% of the total votes.
Union Bank stated that their approval is still awaited from higher authorities and expressed that extending the PIRP process timeline would be in the best interest of all parties involved.
SBI explained that their approval process follows a step-by- step procedure, and the delay is due to the implementation of a new policy. They have prepared the necessary note and submitted it for approval and hence they are asking for 30 days extension in the PIRP process.
After all this discussion, Central Bank suggested to put the resolution for extending the PIRP period to vote.
Mr. Shiv Kumar proposed that a minimum of 48 hours be allotted for voting on the resolution for timeline extension. In response, the RP clarified that the voting period on repayment plan is concluding on 16th May 2025 at 7:00 PM. The RP would be required to file an application under Section 112 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, or an application for the extension of the PIRP period, depending on the members' decision. Therefore, the RP requested that all members submit their respective votes via email by 6:00 PM on 16th May 2025.
Members suggested that, instead of conducting a formal vote, their decisions be verbally recorded during the meeting, with subsequent confirmation through the minutes. The RP stated that minutes usually confirmed during the next meeting, and emphasized the necessity of having decisions documented in writing, citing the Hon'ble NCLT's previous reluctance to grant extensions during the last PIRP process extension application.
5 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025 The CBI inquired about the procedure if the resolution is not approved. The RP clarified that, in such a scenario, the PIRP would automatically conclude on 19th May 2025. Subsequently, the RP would be required to file an application under Section 112 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 201 6. When CBI sought further clarification on Section 1 12, the RP explained that this provision mandates the RP to prepare and submit a report to the Adjudicating Authority detailing the outcome of the creditors' meeting concerning the repayment plan. regardless of whether the plan was approved or not. This report must include information such as the approval status, any modifications, resolutions proposed, voting records, and other pertinent details as deemed appropriate by the RP.
The members unanimously agreed to put the timeline extension agenda to vote. Consequently, the minutes will be shared after incorporating the results of the voting."
The minutes further record that the said decision to seek extension was
approved by 51.13% of vote which is recorded in item no.7 and application
was filed thereafter.
6. In the facts of the case where repayment plan is to be voted and voting
has been going and 61% had been voted and request was only made by SBI
and Union Bank of India for 30 days in response to which the application was
filed. We do not approve the observations of the Adjudicating Authority that
there appears to be lack of seriousness in the attitude conduct and approach
of the parties concerned. The personal guarantor after having submitted
repayment plan it was for the CoC to vote and take a decision thereafter. We
thus are of the view that order rejecting the application cannot be sustained,
in result the order dated 23.05.2025 in IA No. 2477/2025 is set aside we
allow extension of 30 days for completing the e-voting on the repayment plan.
6 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025 RP to take necessary steps for complete the voting within 30 days from today
after conclusion of voting further steps shall be taken for correspondence. The
RP has suggested that in view of the voting having been disrupted all
creditors be asked to vote. Let RP issue necessary appropriate notices to all
creditors for voting.
7. Both the appeals have been filed by the personal guarantors it is
sufficient to refer to the pleadings in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 977 of 2025 for
disposing both the appeals.
Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen/NN
7 of 7 Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) Nos. 977 & 978 of 2025
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free