Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi

Order Date: 05-10-2026

Case Overview

This application (IA No. 5856/2026) was filed by Mr. B.D. Agarwal, shareholder and personal guarantor of Krystal Stone Exports Limited (Corporate Debtor), seeking recall of the NCLAT's judgment and order dated 17.07.2026. The impugned order had set aside an NCLT Mumbai order dated 01.06.2026 that directed the Monitoring Committee Chairman to deposit the balance resolution amount of Rs. 14,60,56,036 with 12% interest within 45 days and excluded additional time required for vacation of property SP-2, RIICO Industrial Area, Kilkipura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur from the implementation period.

The dispute centers around the implementation of the resolution plan approved by NCLT on 23.02.2026, with Ms. Sonal Sumit Mehta as Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for a total consideration of Rs. 18,81,00,000. The SRA had paid the upfront amount of Rs. 4,20,43,964 within 30 days but faced obstacles in obtaining possession of the Jaipur property measuring 14,028 sq. mtrs, which was under unauthorized occupation by Countertops & Cabinets India Pvt Ltd, a company controlled by Agarwal's family members.

The tribunal examined whether the NCLAT's order granting timeline extension constituted modification of the resolution plan and whether Agarwal had locus standi to file the recall application given his status as suspended director and the fact that the tenant occupying the property is owned by his immediate family (wife 49%, son 50%, and himself 1%).

Final Outcome

The NCLAT dismissed the recall application, holding that: (1) Agarwal as suspended director has no unqualified right to participate in implementation matters once the resolution plan is approved; (2) The application is a step to obstruct and delay implementation rather than a bona fide recall request; (3) The extension of timelines for payment obligations does not constitute modification of the resolution plan, citing precedent in GP Global Energy Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr. Sandeep Mahajan & Anr and Ashok Dattaray Atre & Ors V State Bank of India & Ors; (4) The SRA cannot be penalized with interest for delays caused by the unauthorized occupation of property by Agarwal's related parties; (5) The sole financial creditor did not oppose the original appeal seeking extension.

The tribunal found that the subject property remains unlawfully occupied despite NCLT's order dated 03.06.2026 directing vacation within 15 days, and the SRA remains ready and willing to make the balance payment of Rs. 14,60,56,036 once possession is delivered.

Topics: Corporate Insolvency, Resolution Plan Implementation, Property Dispute