Tribunal twist: NCLT to hear Chandra plan again, this time with a bigger bench

Hours after the appellate court agreed to hear aggrieved creditors in the Subhash Chandra loan repayment case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) constituted a new five-judge special bench to reconsider the Zee Group founder’s repayment plan, which it approved last week. The NCLT’s Delhi bench said its previous three-judge bench that approved the scheme could not agree on how it would work.

A five-member bench of NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal; Judicial Members Bachu Venkat Balaram Das and Mahendra Khandelwal Das; and technical members Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi will hear the matter on Tuesday.

Read also | The Sebi order against Zee is likely to delay the planned collection of ₹3,143 crore

Earlier on Monday, lenders LIC Housing Finance, HDFC Bank and Union Bank of India filed an urgent petition in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the NCLT order on Friday.

Quick answers to key questions

•5 QUESTIONS

The NCLT constituted a new five-member special bench to review the Subhash Chandra installment plan as the previous three-member bench could not reach a majority view on how it would work.

The NCLT referred the case to a larger bench as the previous two-judge bench found that no final order could be passed due to materially different positions of the three members on the Chandra repayment plan.

Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan proposes to pay ₹6.25 crore to creditors and ₹25 crore for the insolvency process, a total of ₹6.5 crore against claims of ₹22,006.

Lenders, including HDFC Bank and LIC Housing Finance, are challenging Chandra’s repayment plan, saying it offers low returns and that dissenting lenders should not be bound by it.

The Tribunal is divided on this issue; one member suggested that the plan should only apply to supporters, while another argued that it should include all creditors, leading to the current reconsideration.

The NCLT clarified that there was no majority view on Chandra’s repayment plan. One member favored applying the repayment plan only to creditors who supported it, while allowing dissenting banks and financial institutions to pursue separate enforcement proceedings. Another member was of the view that the plan should apply to all creditors, including those who opposed it. The tribunal said the two views have different implications for the rights of dissenting creditors.

“All said and done, no majority opinion has emerged in this matter. Consequently, no order can be passed at this stage. Consequently, we have no option but to refer again to the Hon’ble President in terms of the provisions of Section 419(5) of the Code,” the NCLT said.

Read also | Adani gets NCLT nod for JAL acquisition, gains scale in North Indian real estate

Challenged plan

The latest twist comes days after the tribunal approved Chandra’s repayment plan under which she will pay ₹6.5 million. from that ₹6.25 million would go to creditors, while ₹25 million would be used to cover the costs of the insolvency process.

Mint first reported that Nilesh Sharma, who was inducted as the third member by NCLT president in February 2026, approved the repayment plan on August 25.

The plan ran into opposition, with HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank and Union Bank of India voting against. However, the plan received 80.81% support from creditors by value.

The case concerns Chandra’s liability as a personal guarantor for loans taken by several companies associated with Essel and Zee.

Government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, had earlier told Mint that the case should not be taken to mean that Chandra personally took loans worth thousands of crores of rupees. Insolvency proceedings were opened against him because he provided personal guarantees for loans received by companies in the group.

According to the officials, probably ₹2,574 million of the claims relate to loans for which Chandra had given personal guarantees when the loans were originally taken. Most of his other guarantees were given later as an additional guarantee.

The dispute over the repayment schedule revolves around whether creditors who opposed the proposal should also be bound by it.

Read also | HDFC Bank may challenge Subhash Chandra’s ₹6.5 crore installment plan

In approving the plan, Sharma held that the creditors were involved in the process and that no sufficient prejudice had been shown. It also ruled that the tribunal should not substitute its own business judgment for a decision made by the requisite majority of creditors.

However, the latest clarification from NCLT means that there is currently no final majority order on the installment plan. A five-member special committee will now look into the issue, with the lenders also approaching the NCLAT.