# In the matter of Vivek Raheja, Resolution Professional CA (AT) (Ins) No. 331 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-05-04. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00270. The appeal challenges an order by the Adjudicating Authority dated 17.03.2021, which rejected…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 4 May 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00270
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vivek-raheja-resolution-professional-ca-at-ins-no-331-of-2021-74016a74

## Summary

### Background

The appeal challenges an order by the Adjudicating Authority dated 17.03.2021, which rejected certain prayers in I.A No. 891 of 2021. The appellant had filed an application seeking exclusion of time consumed due to lockdown imposed by the government and time consumed due to the pendency of I.A 4208 of 2020. The Adjudicating Authority excluded 97 days instead of the claimed 160 days and rejected the exclusion of time consumed due to the pendency of I.A. The appellant argued that the CIRP process was at a nascent stage, and the exclusion of time was necessary for the successful completion of the CIRP.

## Facts

Vivek Raheja, the Resolution Professional, filed an application (I.A No. 891 of 2021) before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT New Delhi Bench- II) seeking exclusion of time consumed due to the lockdown imposed by the Government of India and State Government, as well as time consumed due to the pendency of I.A 4208 of 2020. The Adjudicating Authority excluded 97 days from 25.03.2020 to 30.06.2020 due to the lockdown but rejected the exclusion of time consumed due to the pendency of I.A. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 26.02.2020. Due to the lockdown from 25.03.2020, only one meeting was convened on 02.04.2020. The second and third meetings were convened on 09.06.2020 and 26.08.2020. The appellant filed I.A 4208 of 2020 on 27.09.2020, which was pending for

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in rejecting the exclusion of time consumed due to …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the interpretation of Section 12(3) of the IBC, which mandates the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the exclusion of

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation involves understanding the scope of Section 12(3) of the IBC

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, where

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; KanthiNar…
- **Appellants:** Vivek R…
- **Advocates:** KD Sh…

## Timeline

- **2020-02-26 — Commencement…**: The CIRP of the…
- **2020-03-25 — Lockdown I…**: Lockdown imposed due to…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 12(3) — Time-limit for completion of insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-12)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vivek-raheja-resolution-professional-ca-at-ins-no-331-of-2021-74016a74