NCLAT Refuses To Recall Order Excluding Property Eviction Delay From Resolution Plan Timeline

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at Delhi has refused to recall its earlier order excluding delays in handing over a property from the implementation timeline of a resolution plan. It held that the successful resolution applicant should not be penalised for delays caused by the unauthorised occupation of the property by a company controlled by the suspended management's family.

“The exclusion of time granted on 17.07.2026 was made precisely because the Subject Property (which was not under any valid tenancy) and despite the Successful Resolution Applicant having promptly paid the entire upfront amount, could not be handed over due to the continued and unauthorized occupation by M/s Countertops; infact by applicant's own family,” a bench of Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra observed.

The application was filed by B.D. Agarwal, a shareholder and personal guarantor of Krystal Stone Exports Limited, which entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on May 3, 2024.

Sonal Sumit Mehta's resolution plan was approved by the creditors in May 2025 and NCLT Mumbai in February 2026. It required an upfront payment of ₹4.20 crore, with the remaining ₹14.60 crore payable within 90 days.

However, part of the Jaipur property remained in the unauthorised occupation of Countertops, a company controlled by B.D. Agarwal's family.

NCLT granted Mehta an additional 45 days to pay the balance with 12% annual interest but refused to exclude the eviction period. NCLAT overturned that decision in July 2026. Agarwal challenged the order, arguing that excluding the delay amounted to modifying the approved plan.

NCLAT also noted that NCLT had directed Countertops on June 3, 2026, to hand over vacant possession within 15 days. The company had not complied with that direction.

The tribunal held that extending or excluding timelines for financial obligations under a resolution plan does not amount to modifying the plan. It also noted that Agarwal was neither a financial nor an operational creditor, had not been impleaded in the earlier appeal and had suffered no legal injury.

NCLAT dismissed the application.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Ramji Srinivasan with Advocates Abhishek Naik, Shefali Munde, Gulafsha Kureshi, Harshita Chaturvedi and Aryansh Tripathi

For Respondents: Advocates Abhishek Anand and Karan Kohli, for R2; Advocates Anurag Kalavitiya, Parul Singhal and Vidhi Pratap Singh,Nipun Gautam