Published: · Source checked:
A failed resolution plan did not lead immediately to liquidation in Sandhya and Co & Anr v. Jain Housing and Constructions Limited. On 8 September 2026, NCLT Chennai restored CIRP, appointed a fresh Resolution Professional and required the creditor committee to be reconstituted before further action was recommended. This was an interim process-management order, not a general ruling that liquidation can always be avoided. Official order, pages 1–2.
The order and its procedural limits
| Item | Verified detail |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLT Chennai, Division Bench, Court-II |
| Members | Jyoti Kumar Tripathi, Judicial; Ravichandran Ramasamy, Technical |
| Application | IA(IBC)/1108/(CHE)/2026 in CP(IB)/628(CHE)2017 |
| Order date | |
| Applicant’s position | Unsecured creditor and member of the CoC |
| Relief requested | Liquidation of the corporate debtor and sanction for prosecution of the successful resolution applicant |
| Order made | CIRP restored; fresh RP appointed; report required; application listed again |
The short order records that the applicant had accepted the resolution plan and that the CoC approved it unanimously. The Tribunal had approved that plan on 23 December 2019. The creditor subsequently stated that the successful resolution applicant had made no payment to it and that the plan had failed. These are the circumstances recorded by the Bench; the order does not undertake a detailed accounting of implementation or quantify a present recovery balance. Page 1.
Why identifying the next decision-maker mattered
The Tribunal considered the appropriate course to be putting an RP back in charge, constituting the CoC and obtaining its recommendation on further action. That sequence is the practical point of the order. The creditor’s request for liquidation was not treated as a substitute for the revived process and the committee’s consideration.
The erstwhile RP had been discharged when the resolution plan was approved. The Bench therefore appointed Radhakrishnan Gopal as a fresh RP and directed him to take charge immediately. It did not simply assume that the discharged RP remained responsible indefinitely. Pages 1–2.
For a practitioner, a failed-plan application should distinguish the alleged breach from the machinery needed to act on it. Relevant questions include who presently controls the debtor, whether the earlier RP’s appointment continues, what creditor body will consider the next step and what report is sought from that professional. Those are analytical questions drawn from this order, not a new universal prerequisite created by it.
Funding and reporting directions were concrete relief
The applicant was directed to make an interim consolidated payment of ₹2 lakh to the new RP until the CoC was constituted, after which the CoC would bear the cost. The RP was directed to submit a report within four weeks from uploading of the order. Page 2.
The upload trigger matters. The four weeks should not be calculated automatically from the 8 September pronouncement without checking the actual upload date. The ₹2 lakh direction concerned professional costs in this matter; it was not compensation to the creditor, a recovery award or a general fee scale for restored CIRPs.
The application was listed for 12 October 2026. This note does not report what happened on that later date, whether the report was filed or what course the reconstituted CoC recommended. The September order itself supplies none of those later outcomes.
What the order did not decide
The Bench did not grant an immediate liquidation order. It also did not grant the requested sanction for prosecution in this order. Equally, restoration did not establish that the successful applicant had discharged its obligations, or prevent a later properly founded application for different relief. The application remained before the Tribunal for further hearing.
A current application must also be tested against the applicable version of Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including the 2026 amendments governing restoration. This two-page order does not explain the full amended framework or decide every condition for revival of a failed plan. It should be used for its actual procedural sequence, rather than as authority for bypassing statutory conditions or obtaining repeated restoration as of right.
For a different stage of the process, SRS’s rejected homebuyer pricing clause concerned refusal to approve a proposed plan. Jain Housing instead concerned the reported failure of an already approved plan; those triggers should not be conflated.
Questions practitioners may ask
Did the creditor obtain liquidation?
Not through this order. The Bench restored CIRP and required a new RP/CoC process before further action was recommended.
Was the prosecution request allowed?
No such sanction is granted in the order. The application was listed again; a request in the caption or submissions is not the same as relief awarded.
Was a fresh resolution plan approved?
No. The decision concerned restarting the process and obtaining a report. It did not approve a replacement plan or establish payment to creditors.
Source and research scope
Read the official NCLT Chennai order dated 8 September 2026, pages 1–2. This case note describes that interim order as delivered. Source verification on 1 November 2026 did not establish the subsequent docket outcome; a targeted official-source search is not proof that no later order, appeal or stay exists.