NCLT case coverage: Reliance dismisses Subhash Chandra’s allegations against its media entities as ‘baseless’ | Today’s news
The Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Group on Friday rejected the Essel Group chairman’s allegations Subhas Chandra against Reliance’s media business, amid controversy surrounding Chandra’s personal insolvency proceedings and reports that creditors could face a 99.97% cut on claims exceeding ₹22,000 million crowns.
In a statement, Reliance Group expressed its disappointment over Chandra’s comments, calling the allegations “baseless”.
“We strongly reject the allegations and innuendo against the media entities that are part of the Reliance Group. Our media brands have never been used to attack anyone and will never be. We have great respect for Shri Subhash Chandra as a businessman and entrepreneur. We wish him the best of luck,” Reliance said.
On Tuesday, NCLT Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma, who was appointed as the third member to resolve the differences between the original members of the bench, approved a resolution plan under which Chandra would pay around ₹6.5 million for recognized claims of creditors.
The original two-judge bench of the NCLT delivered a split verdict. After the disagreement, the chairman of the tribunal appointed Sharma as the third member to decide the matter.
Creditors challenge payout as ‘illegal’
Sharma rejected objections raised by dissenting lenders led by LIC Housing Finance, who opposed the proposed settlement, calling the payout “unviable and illegal”.
Creditors argued that the resolution plan offered only ₹6.25 crores on recognized claims of approx ₹22,006.57 million crowns. Other ₹25 million was proposed to cover the costs associated with insolvency proceedings.
The result essentially means that creditors would recover only a tiny fraction of the claims admitted in the proceedings, leading to a significant reduction.
Chandra argues ₹A claim in the amount of 22,000 million crowns
Chandra issued a statement on Thursday disputing reports that the total claims against him in the personal insolvency proceedings were more than ₹22,000 million crowns.
He said the total claim against him was only ” ₹3,992 crore” and emphasized that he acted as a personal guarantor rather than a borrower in relation to the underlying loans.
The dispute therefore focused not only on the proposed amount of the repayment, but also on the nature and amount of liabilities attributed to Chandra in the insolvency proceedings.
The case goes back to the original NCLT bench
The matter now goes back to the original Division Bench to issue a formal order in accordance with the majority opinion. The procedure is governed by section 419(5) of the Companies Act 2013, which governs the procedure after a difference of opinion between the members of the tribunal is resolved by a third member.
