Corporate Resolution Process – time limit ?= By this judgment, the NCLAT granted relief as sought for by the IDBI Bank to exclude period from 17th September, 2018 till 4th June, 2019 for the purpose of counting 270 days Corporate Resolution Process period and issued consequential directions.= Appeals were filed before Apex court – Indeed, the third proviso to Section 12(3) predicates time limit for completion of Insolvency Resolution Process, which has come into effect from 16th August, 2019.The same reads thus : “Provided also that where the insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, such resolution process shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019.” Taking an overall view of the matter, we deem it just, proper and expedient to issue directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to all concerned to reckon 90 days extended period from the date of this order instead of the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019. That means, in terms of this order, the CIRP concerning JIL shall be completed within a period of 90 days from today. = Accordingly, we pass the following order to do substantial and complete justice to the parties and in the interest of all the stakeholders of JIL: i) We direct the IRP to complete the CIRP within 90 days from today. In the first 45 days, it will be open to the IRP to invite revised resolution plan only from Suraksha Realty and NBCC respectively, who were the final bidders and had submitted resolution plan on the earlier occasion and place the revised plan(s) before the CoC, if so required, after negotiations and submit report to the adjudicating authority NCLT within such time. In the second phase of 45 days commencing from 21st December, 2019, margin is provided for removing any difficulty and to pass appropriate orders thereon by the Adjudicating Authority. ii) The pendency of any other application before the NCLT or NCLAT, as the case may be, including any interim direction given therein shall be no impediment for the IRP to receive and process the revised resolution plan from the above­named two bidders and take it to its logical end as per the provisions of the I & B Code within the extended timeline prescribed in terms of this order. iii) We direct that the IRP shall not entertain any expression of interest (improved) resolution plan individually or jointly or in concert with any other person, much less ineligible in terms of Section 29A of the I & B Code. iv) These directions are issued in exceptional situation in the facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent. v) This order may not be construed as having answered the questions of law raised in both the appeals, including as recognition of the power of the NCLT / NCLAT to issue direction or order not consistent with the statutory timelines and stipulations specified in the I & B Code and Regulations framed thereunder. 22. Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. Along with the appeals, applications filed therein also stand disposed of.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2019
(D. NO.27229/2019)
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd & Anr. … Appellant
Versus
IDBI Bank Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6486 of 2019
O R D E R

  1. Permission to file the appeal is granted in Diary
    No.27229/2019.
  2. These appeals emanate from the Corporate Insolvency
    Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short) concerning Jaypee Infratech
    Ltd. (‘JIL’ for short) wherein the National Company Law Appellate
    Tribunal, New Delhi (‘NCLAT’ for short) disposed of Company
    2
    Appeal (AT)(INS) No.536 of 2019 and Company Appeal (AT)(INS)
    No.708 of 2019 and applications therein by a common judgment
    and order dated 30th July, 2019. By this judgment, the NCLAT
    granted relief as sought for by the IDBI Bank to exclude period from
    17th September, 2018 till 4th June, 2019 for the purpose of counting
    270 days Corporate Resolution Process period and issued
    consequential directions.
  3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the IDBI Bank had filed an
    application being CP No. (I&B) 77/ALD/2017 under Section 7 of the
    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘the I & B Code’)
    against JIL before the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad
    (‘NCLT’ for short), as the JIL had turned NPA (Non­Performing
    Asset). During the pendency of the said application, writ petitions
    were filed in this Court by the home buyers concerning the stated
    project of JIL, which came to be disposed of on 9th August, 2018 in
    the case of Chitra Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.1
    .
    This Court issued the following directions :­
    “42. We, accordingly, issue the following directions:
    1 2018 (9) SCALE 490
    3
    (i) In exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article
    142 of the Constitution, we direct that the initial period of
    180 days for the conclusion of the CIRP in respect of JIL
    shall commence from the date of this order. If it becomes
    necessary to apply for a further extension of 90 days, we
    permit the NCLT to pass appropriate orders in accordance
    with the provisions of the IBC;
    (ii) We direct that a CoC shall be constituted afresh in
    accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and
    Bankruptcy (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, more
    particularly the amended definition of the expression
    “financial creditors”;
    (iii) We permit the IRP to invite fresh expressions of interest for
    the submission of resolution plans by applicants, in addition
    to the three short­listed bidders whose bids or, as the case
    may be, revised bids may also be considered;
    (iv) JIL/JAL and their promoters shall be ineligible to participate
    in the CIRP by virtue of the provisions of Section 29A;
    (v) RBI is allowed, in terms of its application to this Court to
    direct the banks to initiate corporate insolvency resolution
    proceedings against JAL under the IBC;
    (vi) The amount of Rs 750 crores which has been deposited in
    this Court by JAL/JIL shall together with the interest
    accrued thereon be transferred to the NCLT and continue to
    remain invested and shall abide by such directions as may
    be issued by the NCLT.”
  4. Consequent thereto, the matter proceeded before the NCLT
    being the adjudicating authority. The Interim Resolution
    Professional (‘IRP’ for short) had issued public notice inviting claims
    from all JIL’s stakeholders including the home buyers. IRP
    4
    submitted his report on formation of Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’
    for short) before the adjudicating authority on the following basis :
    37.3% in case of Financial Institutions.
    62.3% home buyers and
    0.4% Fixed Deposit holders
  5. One of the home buyers’ Association filed application before
    the NCLT seeking clarification as to the manner in which the voting
    percentage of the allottees (home buyers) will be reckoned. That
    application was filed on 17th September, 2018 before the NCLT.
    After hearing the concerned authorities, the members of NCLT
    expressed difference of opinion on the issue as a result of which
    reference was made to the President of the NCLT, to place the
    matter before the third Member. Eventually, an order was passed
    by the third Member on 24th May, 2019. The said order dated 24th
    May, 2019 had been challenged by Jaypee Green Krescent House
    Buyers Welfare Associations before the NCLAT being Company
    Appeal (AT)(INS) No.708 of 2019.
    5
  6. In the meantime, the IDBI Bank filed an application before the
    NCLT for excluding the period of pendency of the application for
    clarification regarding the manner of counting votes of the
    concerned financial creditors from the period of 270 days of
    Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ for short). While
    the said application was pending, NCLT by order dated 6th May,
    2019 called upon the authorities, representatives of the allottees
    and others to file their reply on the necessity to proceed further
    with the CIRP in accordance with law, for considering the
    resolution plan received from the concerned bidder, subject to the
    outcome of the pending application. The IDBI Bank, feeling
    aggrieved by the opinion expressed by the NCLT to proceed further
    with the CIRP despite pending clarificatory motions before the
    NCLT/NCLAT respectively, including the application to exclude the
    period during the clarificatory application from the total period of
    270 days of the CIRP, assailed the order passed by the NCLT dated
    6
    th May, 2019 by way of Company Appeal (AT)(INS) No.536/2019
    before the NCLAT.
    6
  7. The NCLAT, accordingly, thought it appropriate to proceed
    with both the appeals together for consideration and disposed of
    the same vide the impugned judgment. The relevant discussion
    and the conclusion arrived at by the NCLAT can be discerned from
    paragraph 19 onwards of the impugned judgment. The same read,
    thus :­
    “19. The only question arises for consideration in these
    appeals is whether in the facts and circumstances of the
    case and the interest of the Allottees, which is of primary
    importance in this ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process’,
    the ‘Jaypee Infratech Ltd.’ (Corporate Debtor) should be
    allowed to go for ‘Liquidation’ on the ground that 270 days
    has expired on 6th May, 2019 or the period from ‘17th
    September, 2018 to 4th June, 2019’ during which the matter
    remained pending for consideration before the Adjudicating
    Authority relating to voting share of the Allottees should be
    excluded for the purpose of counting 270 days in the light of
    the decision “Quinn Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mack Soft
    Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” – ‘Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)
    No.185 of 2018’ wherein this Appellate Tribunal observed:
    “9. From the decisions aforesaid, it is clear that if an
    application is filed by the ‘Resolution Professional’ or the
    ‘Committee of Creditors’ or ‘any aggrieved person’ for
    justified reasons, it is always open to the Adjudicating
    Authority/Appellate Tribunal to ‘exclude certain period’ for
    the purpose of counting the total period of 270 days, if the
    facts and circumstances justify exclusion, in unforeseen
    circumstances.
  8. For example, for following good grounds and unforeseen
    circumstances, the intervening period can be excluded for
    counting of the total period of 270 days of resolution
    process:­
    7
    (i) If the corporate insolvency resolution
    process is stayed by ‘a court of law or the
    Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate
    Tribunal or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
    (ii) If no ‘Resolution Professional’ is
    functioning for one or other reason during
    the corporate insolvency resolution
    process, such as removal.
    (iii) The period between the date of order of
    admission/moratorium is passed and the
    actual date on which the ‘Resolution
    Professional’ takes charge for completing
    the corporate insolvency resolution
    process.
    (iv) On hearing a case, if order is reserved by
    the Adjudicating Authority or the
    Appellate Tribunal or the Hon’ble Supreme
    Court and finally pass order enabling the
    ‘Resolution Professional’ to complete the
    corporate insolvency resolution process.
    (v) If the corporate insolvency resolution
    process is set aside by the Appellate
    Tribunal or order of the Appellate Tribunal
    is reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
    and corporate insolvency resolution
    process is restored.
    (vi) Any other circumstances which justifies
    exclusion of certain period.
    However, after exclusion of the period, if further period is
    allowed the total number of days cannot exceed 270 days
    which is the maximum time limit prescribed under the
    Code”.
  9. Admittedly, no regulation was framed under the
    ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code’ as to how the voting share
    of thousands of Allottees will be counted, all of whom come
    8
    within the meaning of ‘Financial Creditors’ and thereby are
    members of the ‘Committee of Creditors’. It was in this
    background the Allottees Association preferred the
    application before the Adjudicating Authority (National
    Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench on 17th
    September, 2018 to decide such issue. The two Hon’ble
    Members of NCLT differed on the principle on 13th December,
    2018 as noticed above and referred the matter to the
    Principal Bench for placing the matter before Third Hon’ble
    Member who has delivered its decision by the order dated
    24th May, 2019. In the meantime, 270 days lapsed, if
    counted from the date the proceeding was remitted by the
    Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e. 6th May, 2019.
  10. This is an extra­ordinary situation when the law was
    silent and there was no guideline, which caused difference of
    opinion between the two Hon’ble Members and finally
    decided by the Third Hon’ble Member. In ‘Quinn Logistics
    India P. Ltd. vs. Macksoft Tech P. Ltd.’ taking into
    consideration different situations including extra ordinary
    situation, this Appellate Tribunal held that certain period
    can be excluded while counting the total period of 270 days.
    The aforesaid principle has also been followed by the Hon’ble
    Supreme Court in the case of ‘Arcelormittal India Private
    Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta &” Ors.’ – (2019) 2 SCC 1
    as also in the case of ‘Chitra Sharma’ (Supra).
  11. In view of aforesaid extra ordinary situation, we are of
    the view that the period from 17th September, 2018 i.e. the
    date of application filed by the Association of the allottees for
    clarification for the order and till the final decision i.e. 4th
    June, 2019 i.e. the date the matter was finally decided by
    the Third Hon’ble Member (Total 260 days), can be excluded
    for the purpose of counting the 270 days. However, as the
    matter is pending since long, we are not inclined to exclude
    the total period of 260 days and instead in the interest of the
    Allottees, we exclude 90 days for the purpose of counting the
    period of 270 days of ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution
    Process’, which should be counted from the date of receipt of
    the copy of this order.
    9
  12. The aforesaid period is excluded to enable the
    ‘Resolution Professional’/‘Committee of Creditors’ to call for
    fresh ‘resolution plans’ and to consider them, if so required
    after negotiations pass appropriate order under sub­section
    (5) of Section 30 of the I&B Code preferably within a period
    of 45 days. Rest of the period of 45 days margin is given to
    remove any difficulty and appropriate order as may be
    passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
    The voting share of the allottees should be counted in terms
    of ‘I&B Code’ as existing on the date of voting/’Regulation’
    and/or in accordance with majority decision of the
    Adjudicating Authority.
  13. It is made clear that all the earlier ‘resolution plan(s)’
    including the plan submitted by the ‘NBCC’, cannot be
    considered, having been rejected by the ‘Committee of
    Creditors’. However, it will be open to the ‘NBCC’ to file a
    fresh improved ‘resolution plan. It is informed that ‘Adani
    Infra (I) Ltd.’ also proposed to file ‘resolution plan’ but we are
    not expressing any opinion with regard to the same. We have
    given opportunity to all the eligible persons to file ‘expression
    of interest’/(improved) ‘resolution plan’, individually or
    jointly or in concert with any person, but those who are
    ineligible in terms of Section 29A, are barred from filing such
    plan. No liberty is given to ‘Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.’, in
    view of the aforesaid observation and decision of Hon’ble
    Supreme Court in ‘Chitra Sharma’ (Supra)
  14. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are not inclined
    to interfere with the impugned order dated 24th (sic) May,
  15. Order of exclusion having already passed by this
    Appellate Tribunal, C.A. No.115 of 2019 in C.P. No.(IB)
    77/ALD/2017 preferred by the ‘Resolution Professional’ and
    the order dated 6th May, 2019 as impugned in ‘Company
    Petition (AT) (Insolvency) No.536 of 2019’ are declared
    infructuous.
    10
    Both the appeals stand disposed of with aforesaid
    observations and directions.”
  16. This judgment is assailed by Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (‘JAL’
    for short). JIL is the subsidiary of JAL. Another appeal has been
    filed by the Wish Town Home Buyers Welfare Society (one of the
    home buyers’ Association). In the appeal filed by the JAL, two
    principal questions of law have been urged. The first is as to
    whether the NCLAT had power or authority in law to exclude 90
    days from the statutory period of the CIRP, much less for the
    reasons stated in the impugned judgment. The second question is
    as to whether despite rejection of resolution plans of Suraksha
    Realty and NBCC by the CoC on 5th May, 2019 and 10th June, 2019
    respectively, could the NCLAT, after excluding 90 days period from
    the total CIRP period, again start the CIRP afresh by allowing the
    two bidders to submit their revised resolution plans and/or invite
    fresh resolution plan from eligible persons and to call upon the CoC
    to reconsider the same, if so required, after negotiations. The home
    buyers’ Association, in its appeal have also questioned the power of
    NCLAT to disregard the mandatory provisions of I & B Code and to
    11
    issue directions for inviting fresh resolution plans after expiry of the
    statutory period for completion of the CIRP.
  17. The limited issue that needs to be examined in these appeals
    is about the power of the NCLT or NCLAT, as the case may be, to
    exclude any period from the statutory period in exercise of inherent
    powers sans any express provision in the I & B Code in that regard.
    Further, is it open to allow the bidder whose resolution plan has
    already been rejected by the CoC to submit revised plan or to invite
    fresh resolution plans to be considered by the CoC after the
    statutory period specified for submission of such plans? Learned
    counsel appearing for the concerned parties have invited our
    attention to the relevant provisions of the I & B Code to buttress
    their respective arguments.
  18. After cogitating over the submissions, it has become clear to
    us that the inevitable fall out of accepting the stand taken by the
    appellants would be to set aside the impugned judgment and
    relegate the parties to a situation where the only option would be to
    proceed with the liquidation process concerning JIL under Chapter
    12
    III of Part II of the I & B Code, on the premise that no resolution
    plan has been received before the expiry of the Insolvency
    Resolution Process under Section 12 of the I & B Code or being a
    case of rejection of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the I & B
    Code. However, during the arguments, there has been complete
    unanimity between all the stakeholders including the appellants
    before this Court that the liquidation of JIL must be eschewed as it
    would do more harm to the interests of the stakeholders, in
    particular the large number of home buyers, who aspire to have
    their home at the earliest.
  19. Considering the position taken by the stakeholders before this
    Court and the pendency of other writ petitions and miscellaneous
    applications filed by the home buyers and also by JAL to issue
    directions and pass orders and, if necessary, in exercise of power
    under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to salvage the
    situation and provide for a wholesome solution which will subserve
    the interests of all concerned and in particular of large number of
    home buyers who have voting share of 62.3% (as mentioned in the
    13
    report submitted by IRP) being constituent of CoC, it may not be
    appropriate nor necessary for us to dilate on the submissions made
    across the Bar by the concerned parties and to answer the
    questions of law urged by the appellants noted hitherto. Instead, we
    may exercise our plenary powers under Article 142 of the
    Constitution of India to effectuate the exposition in Chitra Sharma
    (supra) and to do substantial justice to the parties before us. In
    doing so, we may have to adopt the same course as noted in
    paragraphs 22 to 24 of the impugned judgment with some
    modulation thereto.
  20. We are conscious of the fact that a section of the home buyers
    have come up in appeal against the impugned judgment as they
    entertain bona fide apprehension that the entire process would get
    delayed further due to inviting fresh offers from eligible persons.
    However, we must immediately note that we are not in favour of
    inviting fresh resolution plans from other eligible persons, as noted
    by the NCLAT, for being considered by the CoC afresh. We shall
    elaborate on this a little later.
    14
  21. We also take note of the suggestion given by the home buyers
    Association, appellants before this Court, that the entire process be
    kept outside the I & B Code dispensation and to be monitored
    directly by this Court. The temptation of accepting the said
    submission, however, is fraught with being in conflict with the
    opinion expressed by the three­Judge Bench of this Court in Chitra
    Sharma (surpa). In paragraph 39 of the said decision, the Court
    observed, thus :­
    “39. …Learned counsel for the IRP submitted that in the CoC
    which will be reconstituted under the amended IBC, the
    home buyers would have a substantial voting power so as to
    be able to effectively protect their interests. Moreover, this
    Court should follow the discipline of the IBC which has been
    enacted by Parliament specifically to streamline the
    resolution of corporate insolvencies. Matters involving
    corporate insolvencies require expert determination. The
    legislature has made specific provisions which are conceived
    in public interest and to facilitate good corporate
    governance. The Court should not take upon itself the
    burden of supervising the intricacies of the resolution
    process. Accepting the suggestion of Mr. Nariman (and one
    of the two options proposed by Mr. Tripathi) of the Court
    appointing a Committee to supervise the resolution process
    outside the IBC will involve the Court in an insuperable
    burden of evaluating intricate matters of financial expertise
    on which Parliament has legislated to create specific
    mechanisms. We are emphatically of the view that it would
    not be appropriate for the Court to appoint a Committee to
    oversee the CIRP and assume the task of supervising the
    15
    work of the Committee. We must particularly be careful not
    to supplant the mechanisms which have been laid down in
    the IBC by substituting them with a mechanism under
    judicial directions. Such a course of action would in our view
    not be consistent with the need to ensure complete justice
    under Article 142, under the regime of law. Hence, the power
    under Article 142 should be utilised at the present stage for
    the limited purpose of recommencing the resolution process
    afresh from the stage of appointment of IRP by the order
    dated 9 August 2017 and resultantly renew the period which
    has been prescribed for the completion of the resolution
    process…”
    The revival of CIRP in relation to JIL is on account of this decision
    in Chitra Sharma and would, therefore, be binding on all
    concerned. It is between the same parties.
  22. We are conscious of the fact that adopting the course
    indicated in the impugned judgment as our direction, may also
    have the effect of modifying the directions given in paragraph 42(i)
    in Chitra Sharma (supra) reproduced above, namely, that the
    initial period of 180 days for the conclusion of the CIRP in respect of
    JIL shall commence from the date of the order, i.e., 9th August,
    2018 and the further extension could be only for 90 days. However,
    it is one thing to accept the stand of the stakeholders to provide
    mechanism outside the I & B Code than to say that the mechanism
    16
    provided by I & B Code be modulated in some respect whilst
    ensuring that such modulation does not do any violence to the
    legislative intent and at the same time, subserve the cause of justice
    and provide a window to find out a viable solution to all the
    stakeholders.
  23. We are also conscious of the fact that the recent amendment
    to the I & B Code has come into effect, thereby amending Section 12
    to freeze or peg the maximum period of CIRP to 330 days from the
    insolvency commencement date which in this case must be taken
    as 9th August, 2018 in light of the direction given in Chitra
    Sharma (supra). It is, however, noticed from several amendments
    made to the I & B Code from time to time that the Legislature has
    also continually worked upon introducing changes to the I & B
    Code so as to address the problems faced in implementation of the
    new legislation introduced as recently as in 2016. The case on
    hand is a classic example of how the entire process has got
    embroiled in litigation initially before this Court and now before the
    NCLT and NCLAT respectively, because of confusion or lack of
    clarity in respect of foundational processes to be followed by the
    17
    CoC. That becomes evident from the time consumed by IRP or the
    adjudicating and appellate authority to remove the doubts on
    matter such as how the vote share of CoC be computed on account
    of inclusion of allottees/home buyers as financial creditors. The
    home buyers have also expressed some doubt about their status as
    secured creditors. All these issues are being ironed out by the
    adjudicating authority. It is also a matter of record that NCLT was
    functioning only on two days of the week and when it took decision
    on the application for clarification, there was difference of opinion
    between the members which was then required to be resolved by
    the President of the NCLT. It is not a case where one party was
    trying to march over the other by resorting to unnecessary or
    avoidable litigation. The fact remains that the application for
    clarification made by the home buyers on 17th September 2018 at
    the earliest opportunity after commencement of the resolution
    process pursuant to the order dated 9th August, 2018 passed by
    this Court in Chitra Sharma (supra), remained pending for quite
    some time. That delay is attributable to the law’s delay. Neither the
    home buyers nor the other financial creditors can be blamed for the
    18
    pendency of the proceedings before the NCLT and later on before
    the NCLAT. The NCLT realizing the uncertainty in resolving the
    said issue, wanted to proceed with the resolution plan subject to
    the outcome of the pending IA as is manifest from its order dated 6th
    May, 2019. Even that became subject matter of challenge in the
    appeal filed by the IDBI before the NCLAT which was finally
    disposed of vide the impugned judgment.
  24. Suffice it to note that an extraordinary situation had arisen
    because of the constant experimentation which went about at
    different level due to lack of clarity on matters crucial to the
    decision making process of CoC. Besides that, in view of the recent
    legislative changes, the scope of resolution plan stands expanded
    which may now include provision for restructuring the corporate
    debtor including by way of merger, amalgamation and demerger
    and more so the power bestowed on the CoC to consider not only
    the feasibility and viability of the resolution plan but also the
    manner of distribution proposed, which may take into account the
    order of priority amongst the creditors. Additionally, the recently
    inserted Section 12A enables the adjudicating authority to allow the
    19
    withdrawal of an application filed under Section 7 or Section 9 or
    Section 10, on an application made by the applicant with the
    approval of 90% voting share of the CoC. Similarly, sub­clause (7)
    of Regulation 36B inserted with effect from 4th July, 2018, dealing
    with the request for resolution plans unambiguously postulates
    that the Resolution Professional may, with the approval of the
    Committee, reissue request for resolution plans, if the resolution
    plans received in response to earlier request are not satisfactory,
    subject to the condition that the request is made to all prospective
    resolution applicants in the final list. In the present case, finally
    only two bidders had participated and submitted their resolution
    plan which was placed before the CoC and stated to have been
    rejected. However, applying the principle underlying Regulation
    36B(7), we deem it appropriate to permit the IRP to reissue request
    for resolution plans to the two bidders (Suraksha Realty and NBCC)
    and/or to call upon them to submit revised resolution plan(s),
    which can be then placed before the CoC for its due consideration.
  25. In the present case, as aforementioned, there is unanimity
    amongst all the parties appearing before this Court including the
    20
    resolution applicant that liquidation of JIL must be eschewed and
    instead an attempt be made to salvage the situation by finding out
    some viable arrangement which would subserve the interests of all
    concerned.
  26. In view of the legislative changes referred to above, we are of
    the considered opinion that we need to and must exercise our
    plenary powers to make an attempt to revive the corporate debtor
    (AIL), lest it is exposed to liquidation process under Chapter III of
    Part II of the I & B Code. We are inclined to do so because the
    project has been implemented in part and out of over 20,000 home
    buyers, a substantial number of them have been put in possession
    and the remaining work is in progress and in some cases at an
    advanced stage of completion. In this backdrop, it would be in the
    interest of all concerned to accept a viable plan reflecting the recent
    legislative changes.
  27. Indeed, the third proviso to Section 12(3) predicates time limit
    for completion of Insolvency Resolution Process, which has come
    into effect from 16th August, 2019.The same reads thus :
    21
    “Provided also that where the insolvency resolution process
    of a corporate debtor is pending and has not been completed
    within the period referred to in the second proviso, such
    resolution process shall be completed within a period of
    ninety days from the date of commencement of the
    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019.”
    Taking an overall view of the matter, we deem it just, proper and
    expedient to issue directions under Article 142 of the Constitution
    of India to all concerned to reckon 90 days extended period from the
    date of this order instead of the date of commencement of the
    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019. That
    means, in terms of this order, the CIRP concerning JIL shall be
    completed within a period of 90 days from today.
  28. We do not deem it necessary to dilate on the arguments of the
    respective counsel for the nature of order that we intend to pass,
    including about the locus standi of JAL which, in our opinion,
    already stands answered against JAL by virtue of Section 29A of the
    Act as expounded in Chitra Sharma (supra).
    22
  29. Accordingly, we pass the following order to do substantial and
    complete justice to the parties and in the interest of all the
    stakeholders of JIL:
    i) We direct the IRP to complete the CIRP within 90 days
    from today. In the first 45 days, it will be open to the IRP
    to invite revised resolution plan only from Suraksha
    Realty and NBCC respectively, who were the final bidders
    and had submitted resolution plan on the earlier
    occasion and place the revised plan(s) before the CoC, if
    so required, after negotiations and submit report to the
    adjudicating authority NCLT within such time. In the
    second phase of 45 days commencing from 21st
    December, 2019, margin is provided for removing any
    difficulty and to pass appropriate orders thereon by the
    Adjudicating Authority.
    ii) The pendency of any other application before the NCLT or
    NCLAT, as the case may be, including any interim
    23
    direction given therein shall be no impediment for the IRP
    to receive and process the revised resolution plan from
    the above­named two bidders and take it to its logical
    end as per the provisions of the I & B Code within the
    extended timeline prescribed in terms of this order.
    iii) We direct that the IRP shall not entertain any expression
    of interest (improved) resolution plan individually or
    jointly or in concert with any other person, much less
    ineligible in terms of Section 29A of the I & B Code.
    iv) These directions are issued in exceptional situation in the
    facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a
    precedent.
    v) This order may not be construed as having answered the
    questions of law raised in both the appeals, including as
    recognition of the power of the NCLT / NCLAT to issue
    direction or order not consistent with the statutory
    24
    timelines and stipulations specified in the I & B Code and
    Regulations framed thereunder.
  30. Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of this order with no
    order as to costs. Along with the appeals, applications filed therein
    also stand disposed of.
    .……………………………,J.
    [A.M. Khanwilkar]
    .……………………………,J.
    [Dinesh Maheshwari]
    New Delhi;
    November 6, 2019.