Terminated concession agreements cannot be compulsorily revived through CIRP enforcement; lawful conciliation or arbitration remains available.

A concession agreement terminated before commencement of CIRP could not be treated as capable of mandatory revival through the insolvency process. The NCLAT held that the Adjudicating Authority could not compel revival of a contract that had already ended years earlier, and the direction enforcing the resolution plan could not extend to such revival. The impugned order was therefore impermissible to that extent. The parties were, however, left free to pursue conciliation or arbitration in accordance with law, including any lawful request for revival, but without a compulsory tribunal mandate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could direct revival of a concession agreement that had been terminated before commencement of the CIRP, and whether the resolution plan could be enforced so as to compel such revival.

Analysis: The concession agreement had been terminated years before the CIRP commenced and had not been revived thereafter. A contract already terminated could not be treated as part of the CIRP in a manner that enabled the Adjudicating Authority to compel its revival. The direction in the impugned order requiring implementation of the resolution plan could not extend to issuing a mandate to revive the terminated concession agreement. At the same time, the parties were left free to pursue conciliation or arbitration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The direction to revive the terminated concession agreement was held impermissible, and the appellant succeeded to that extent. The parties were permitted to take lawful steps for conciliation or arbitration, including consideration of any request for revival, but without any compulsory revival direction from the Tribunal.

---