NCLAT to hear creditors’ plea challenging Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan | Today’s news
Mumbai: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Monday agreed to hear an urgent plea by several creditors challenging the approval of Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Delhi.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the creditors, urged the appellate tribunal to deal with the matter expeditiously. The NCLAT agreed to hear the challenge on Tuesday at 10:30 am.
“There are two or three important issues that are being decided, you know, and if these findings are correct, my sir, we may lose the intent and purpose of the IBC altogether,” Mehta said, virtually alluding to the matter.
The call comes days after the NCLT approved Chandra’s repayment plan under which she will pay ₹6.5 million. from that ₹6.25 million will be paid to creditors, while another ₹25 million will be used to cover the costs of the insolvency process. Together, both amounts together ₹6.5 crore, the total amount proposed under Chandra’s installment plan.
Mint first reported on Tuesday that Insolvency Court’s Third Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma, who was inducted by NCLT President in February 2026, approved the repayment plan.
Mint reported on Thursday that HDFC Bank is considering challenging the NCLT order in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). HDFC opposed Chandra’s repayment plan and voted against it. The bank expects to recover about 3.2% of its total receivables, according to the plan.
The voting record in the copy of the order shows that several lenders, including HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank and Union Bank of India, opposed the repayment plan.
Warranty issue
Government sources told Mint that the Subhash Chandra case should not be seen as Chandra personally taking loans worth thousands of crores. The bankruptcy proceedings are against him because he provided personal guarantees for loans taken by several companies associated with Essel and Zee.
Sources spoke only about ₹2,574 crore of the claims relate to loans for which Chandra had given a personal guarantee when the loans were originally taken. Most of his other guarantees were given later as an additional guarantee.
Sharma said the creditors participated in the process and no sufficient prejudice was shown. It also ruled that the tribunal should not substitute its own business judgment for a decision made by the requisite majority of creditors.
Of course, Sharma’s opinion is not yet the final ranking. The matter will return to the regular bench where final instructions will be determined.
