# Ms Sonal Sumit Mehta vs. Mr Chirag R Shah & Anr.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-10-05. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00283. Ms Sonal Sumit Mehta, representing the Successful Resolution Applicant, filed a recall…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 5 Oct 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00283
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sonal-sumit-mehta-vs-chirag-r-shah-ors-rwv5g

## Summary

### Background

Ms Sonal Sumit Mehta, representing the Successful Resolution Applicant, filed a recall application (IA No.5856/2026) before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). This application challenged an NCLAT order dated 17.07.2026, which had set aside a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai order dated 01.06.2026. The NCLT order had directed Respondent No.1 to deposit a balance resolution amount with interest and excluded time for property vacation from the resolution plan's implementation period. The applicant for recall, Shri B.D. Agarwal (shareholder and personal guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, Krystal Stone Exports Limited), contended that the NCLAT order of 17.07.2026 was passed ex-parte and modified the approved resolution plan.

## Facts

The application (IA No.5856/2026) is filed under Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 by Shri B.D. Agarwal.

Shri B.D. Agarwal is a shareholder and personal guarantor of M/s Krystal Stone Exports Ltd, the Corporate Debtor.

The application seeks recall of the NCLAT judgment and order dated 17.07.2026 in Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No.1262/2026.

The NCLAT order dated 17.07.2026 set aside an NCLT Mumbai order dated 01.06.2026 passed in IA(IBC)/2044(MB)/2026 in CP(IB)/903(MB)/2019.

The NCLT order dated 01.06.2026 directed Respondent No.1 to deposit the balance resolution amount of Rs.14,60,56,036/- within 45 days with 12% interest per annum.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the NCLAT order dated 17.07.2026, which set aside the NCLT order dated 01.06.2026, should …

**Ratio:** A recall application is not bona fide if it aims to obstruct or delay the resolution plan

…

**Reasoning:** Shri B.D. Agarwal was neither impleaded nor served in the original appeal (Company Appeal

…

**Interpretation:** The NCLAT interprets the applicant's actions as an attempt to use procedural

…

**Application:** The application for recall is dismissed as non-est and devoid of merit because

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Yogesh K…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Ms Sonal Sumit…; B.D. Ag…
- **Respondents:** Krystal Stone…; Mr Chirag…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Monitoring…; Samradh Bansidhar…; +1 more
- **Advocates:** Mr Ramji Srinivasa…; Mr Abhishe…; +10 more

## Timeline

- **2024-01-09 — Rent Agreement…**: Mr. B.D. Agarwal, acting as Director of the Corporate Debtor, executed a rent agreement…
- **2024-03-11 — Rajasthan High Court…**: The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, vide an order, observed that Mr. B.D.…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 14 — Moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-14)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sonal-sumit-mehta-vs-chirag-r-shah-ors-rwv5g