Failed Resolution Plan implementation precludes de novo CIRP revival and necessitates mandatory liquidation.

The Corporate Debtor (Bheema Cements Ltd.) was placed under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 09.07.2018

A Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 2 (Consortium SRA) was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) on 11.02.2020

Following persistent defaults by the SRA in meeting payment obligations, the Appellant filed for liquidation under Section 33 of the IBC (IA No. 15/2024) on 01.04.2024

This liquidation application was briefly withdrawn to allow a revised payment schedule, but was later restored via Restoration Application No. 1/2025 due to continued breaches

Subsequently, in January 2026, the Appellant filed IA No. 252/2026 seeking a de novo restoration and revival of the CIRP, the issuance of a fresh Form G, and his re-appointment as Resolution Professional (RP)

The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Hyderabad) rejected this application on 05.02.2026, holding that the CIRP had already culminated and cannot be revived

The court primarily applied Section 33(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, which mandates the initiation of liquidation when a Resolution Plan is not implemented as per its terms

It further addressed Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, regarding inherent powers, clarifying that such powers cannot be used to restart a culminated CIRP to bypass mandatory liquidation

The court distinguished Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Peter Beck and Peter Vermoenesverwaltung Limited, noting that judicial discretion for extension is distinct from de novo revival after multiple implementation failures

The Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIRP legally culminated upon the approval of the Resolution Plan; once the process matures to this stage and the plan fails, the CIRP "is no more breathing in the eyes of law"

The court highlighted the Appellant's inconsistent conduct, noting he had himself initiated and restored the liquidation process under Section 33(1) of the IBC due to the SRA's persistent defaults

The Tribunal rejected the plea to "put the clock back" by re-initiating the CIRP de novo, as the very purpose of the original CIRP stood frustrated by the partial/non-implementation of the revised repayment plan

It distinguished the Edelweiss and Darwin Platform precedents, finding them factually inapplicable as they dealt with extensions of time or performance bank guarantees, rather than the total revival of a closed insolvency process

The Tribunal affirmed that liquidation under Section 33 is the only valid recourse remaining under these circumstances

The impugned order of the NCLT was upheld, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed