CIRP Cannot Be Revived After Resolution Plan Approval And Liquidation: NCLAT Chennai

On 18 March 2026, the Chennai Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be revived after approval of the resolution plan and initiation of liquidation.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Sharad Kumar Sharma and Technical Member Indevar Pandey, dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rao, Ex-Resolution Professional and Chairman of the Monitoring Committee of Bheema Cements Limited.

The Bench observed:

“The challenge by the Appellant in the instant company appeal happens to be in contradiction to his own stand taken, when he himself seeks initiation for liquidation process by filing of an application and then reverting back, praying for re-initiation of the CIRP process, which already stands closed with the approval of the Resolution Plan, and non-implementation of re-schedule repayment plan.”

Bheema Cements entered CIRP on 9 July 2018. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a resolution plan submitted by a consortium on 11 February 2020, which was valued at Rs. 212.23 crore.

The Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) repeatedly defaulted on payment obligations under the approved plan. The Monitoring Committee and secured creditors stipulated that any persistent breach would entitle lenders to seek liquidation.

Consequently, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rao filed an application under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking liquidation. Although he initially withdrew the application to allow for a revised repayment schedule, continued defaults led to the restoration of the liquidation application in 2025.

In January 2026, Mr. Rao sought revival of CIRP and his reappointment as Resolution Professional. The NCLT rejected the application on 5 February 2026, holding that CIRP cannot be revived once the process has concluded and liquidation has commenced, leaving liquidation under Section 33 as the only recourse.

Mr. Rao argued that CIRP could still be restored despite SRA defaults, citing precedents including Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Peter Beck and Peter Vermoenesverwaltung Limited & Another and Darwin Platform Infrastructure Limited v. Union Bank of India.

Respondents contended that CIRP could not be revived after resolution plan approval and initiation of liquidation.

The NCLAT held that CIRP cannot be revived de novo because its purpose was frustrated by the non-implementation of the repayment plan. The Bench clarified that the Edelweiss precedent concerned only the extension of CIRP timelines and could not support revival after liquidation.

Regarding the Darwin Platform matter, the Bench found it inapplicable, as that case involved the invocation of a performance bank guarantee in a different factual context. It concluded that Mr. Rao's claim contradicted his own earlier actions, having first sought liquidation and then requested CIRP revival.

Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.

APPELLANTS ADVOCATE/ PROFESSIONAL: Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan