The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has stayed its August 25 order approving Zee Group Founder and Chairman Subhash Chandra's ₹6.5 crore repayment plan, as reported by The Times of India. The five-member bench led by President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal clarified that there was no definitive majority view among the members, including the third member, and decided to reconsider the matter afresh. The tribunal has issued notices to all parties involved in the case and barred Chandra from transferring, disposing of or otherwise alienating his properties, whether directly or indirectly, during the pendency of the proceedings. This latest development follows the NCLT's earlier constitution of a five-member special bench to resolve the deadlock over Chandra's repayment plan after three tribunal members delivered differing views. The special five-member bench, constituted for the first time in the NCLT's history, also comprises Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Mahendra Khandelwal, Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi. As per The Times of India, the litigation has remained inconclusive over the last one year because of dissenting orders, with a two-member NCLT bench delivering a split verdict in September 2025, where one member approved the repayment plan while the other rejected it, citing irregularities in the admission of claims and voting.
Dissenting lenders have alleged that five entities linked to Essel Group Chairman Subhash Chandra's family together controlled 61.78% of the voting share and were instrumental in pushing through his personal insolvency resolution plan. The five entities are Veena Investments Pvt Ltd, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt Ltd, World Crest Advisors LLP, Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP. According to The Economic Times, the lenders contended that these entities were associates or related parties of Chandra and should have been barred from voting on the repayment plan. However, Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma rejected these submissions, observing that an entity is an "associate" only if the debtor personally holds 51% or more of its share capital, or directly controls its board. Since Chandra held no direct shares in any of the five entities, the test wasn't met, even though a family member allegedly controlled the parent company. The final NCLT order, which was pronounced orally in the courtroom, has yet to be uploaded to the insolvency tribunal's portal.
The NCLT Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri concluded that third member Nilesh Sharma's opinion differed substantially from both earlier views and therefore did not create the majority required for a final order. The two-member bench found that the three members had taken materially different positions on Chandra's repayment plan, with Bhardwaj originally favouring approving the plan only in relation to creditors who supported it and proposing allowing dissenting creditors to continue pursuing independent remedies for recovery of their debts. Puri, however, rejected the repayment plan after finding serious defects in the process followed by the resolution professional. The division bench stated that "While Member (Technical) rejected the plan, the Member (Judicial) confined the plan to those who accepted and approved it and accorded liberty to dissenting creditors to recover their debt. He did not extinguish the claim of banks/financial institutions/dissenting creditors qua principal debtor/debtor/PG. The Third Member approved the plan but extinguished the right of all the creditors by applying Section 115(1) of the Code uniformly." This division has created a fresh hurdle for Chandra's repayment plan, which proposes a total of ₹6.5 crore including ₹6.25 crore for creditors and ₹25 lakh for insolvency process costs. As per The Times of India, analysing all three orders passed by different members, the five-member bench said "It is manifest that as per Section 419 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013, there is no clear majority view capable of being given effect to; therefore, the order dated Aug 25 of the third member Nilesh Sharma, member (judicial), is stayed."
LIC Housing Finance, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Canara Bank, IDBI Trusteeship (Franklin Templeton) and Union Bank of India (UK) Ltd are among the dissenting creditors opposing Chandra's repayment plan. In the tribunal, as a dissenting creditor, LIC Housing Finance had argued that against "the admitted claim of approximately ₹22,006 crore, the repayment plan proposed payment of only ₹6.25 crore to the creditors." The dissenting creditors contend that the plan offers them only ₹38.09 lakh - about 0.028% of what they were owed. LIC Housing Finance has separately questioned the absence of a forensic audit of Chandra's financial position and pointed out that against its admitted claim of ₹1,322.39 crore, the plan offered it precisely ₹38.09 lakh. Canara Bank demanded a forensic audit, but the same could not be allowed in view of its minority voting share. Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, LIC Housing Finance and HDFC Bank had earlier opposed the repayment plan, while other financial creditors holding 80.81% of the voting share had backed it. Chandra's office on Tuesday said in a statement, "We have complete faith and confidence in our judicial system."
The lenders subsequently informed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) about the NCLT's stay, with the NCLAT deferring the hearing of the lenders' plea to Wednesday, September 2. As reported by Business Standard, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the NCLT that an appeal had already been filed against the order by the third member. The proceedings were initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance against Chandra in relation to personal guarantees he had provided for loans taken by Essel Group companies. Chandra has maintained that he did not personally borrow from lenders and that the claims relate to guarantees provided for loans raised by group companies. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was also set to hear appeals by lenders challenging the NCLT's approval of Chandra's repayment plan on Tuesday, but in the morning, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the lenders, told the appellate tribunal that the NCLT had already formed a five-member bench to look into the matter. The NCLT's latest directions leave the repayment plan without effect for now, pending further proceedings before the tribunal, with the matter now awaiting resolution at the appellate level.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved a ₹6.5 crore repayment plan for the insolvency case of Subhash Chandra, marking a significant development in the high-profile corporate recovery matter. As reported by The Economic Times, the plan involves ₹1,494 crore from principal borrowers and ₹6.25 crore from Chandra, who guaranteed ₹22,006 crore in Essel Group borrowings. The approval came on Wednesday, 26 August when the Delhi bench of NCLT approved the plan, with Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma breaking a tie vote to clear the plan under which Chandra would pay against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore. The plan cleared with 80.814% of creditors by voting share in favour, though it represents a recovery rate of approximately 0.03% of the total claims. Third member Nilesh Sharma's 144-page order on August 25 stamped the ₹6.5 crore payment by the Essel Group chairman against creditor claims of about ₹22,006.57 crore in his personal insolvency resolution process, with a nearly 99.97% haircut. The tribunal held that its role was not to substitute its own commercial wisdom for that of the creditors or to assess whether the settlement amount was adequate, noting that once approved, the plan is binding on all creditors under Section 115 of the IBC. Chandra has said the ₹22,006 figure has been widely misunderstood as it represents claims arising from personal guarantees he had provided for loans taken by companies associated with the Essel Group, and not money he had personally borrowed.
