Once a resolution plan fails and the liquidation process under Section 33 of the I&B Code has been initiated due to non-compliance, the CIRP cannot be revived denovo to reset the insolvency process.

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

[ORAL JUDGMENT: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

18.03.2026:

1. The Ex-Resolution Profession of M/s. Bheema Cements Limited, the company under CIRP, is before this Appellate Tribunal, wherein he questions the impugned order of 05.02.2026, as rendered by the Ld. NCLT Hyderabad Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in IA No. 252/2026, preferred in CP(IB) No. 97/07/HDB/2018.

2. The effect of the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 has been that the said IA, as preferred by the Appellant, seeking a denovo restoration and revival of the CIRP process, has been laid to rest. The facts, which could be derived from the records placed before this Appellate Tribunal are, that the legal status of the Appellant, admittedly happens to be that of a Erstwhile Resolution Professional who, at the stage when he has filed the instant company appeal enjoyed the status of being the Chairman and the Member of the Monitoring Committee.

3. The Resolution plan was submitted by Respondent No.2, i.e. a consortium of M/s. Fortuna Engi Tech and Structurals (India) Private Limited and Mr. Prasanna Sai Raghuveer Kandula, Mr. Tadimella Rajakishore and M/s. Murgud Vincom Private Limited.

4. The Corporate Debtor was directed to be placed under CIRP by virtue of an order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Adjudicating authority. The Resolution Plan, which was submitted by Respondent No. 2, was approved by 99.53% of voting in the meeting of the CoC, which was held on 11.02.2020. The total value of the Resolution Plan amounted to Rs. 212,23,00,000/ (Rupees Two Hundred and Twelve Crores and Twenty Three Lakhs only).

5. At various stages of the enforcement of the Resolution Plan, there was failure on the part of Respondent No.2 (Successful Resolution Applicant). The Secured Financial Creditor and the members of the Monitoring Committee had already imposed a condition that, if there is any breach in the enforcement of the Resolution Plan, in making the payments as per the required time schedules, then as per the undertaking in Resolution Plan, the lenders would be entitled to seek an order of liquidation.

6. There was persistent default by the Consortium of Successful Resolution Applicant, in adherence to the payment obligations and the schedule of payment as under the approved Resolution Plan of 11.02.2020.

7. It led to institution of a liquidation process by invocation of the provisions contained under Section 33 of the I & B Code, by filing of an application to the said effect, being IA No. 15/2024 that, was preferred on 01.04.2024, and the same is pending consideration. The said application for liquidation was initially withdrawn by the Appellant/Applicant due to the submission of the revised payment schedule, as proposed by the Consortium of Successful Resolution Applicant. But because of persistent breach in compliance with the revised payment schedule, a Restoration Application No.1/2025 was preferred by the Appellant/application seeking restoration of the liquidation application, i.e., IA No. 15/2024. The said restoration application was allowed. As an effect of restoration, the liquidation application as preferred on 01.04.2024, is still surviving and the liquidation process has been initiated as a consequence of non-compliance of the obligations under the Resolution Plan even and the revised resolution plan and repayment schedule under the revised plan.

8. At a later stage, in January 26, that the Appellant had filed an application, being IA No. 252/2026, praying for the following relief: -

"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, it is prayed