NCLAT Defers Subhash Chandra Insolvency Hearing to Oct 7
By Business Desk
NCLAT postpones Zee founder Subhash Chandra’s personal insolvency hearing to Oct 7 amid NCLT bench challenge. Dispute over Rs 6.25 Cr offer vs Rs 22,006 Cr claims.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has postponed the hearing for Zee founder Subhash Chandra’s personal insolvency case until October 7. This deferral stems from a challenge by Chandra’s legal counsel regarding the constitution of a five-member special bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) currently reviewing his repayment proposal.
Key Financials in the Case
The proposed repayment plan from Chandra’s personal assets amounts to approximately Rs 6.25 crore.
Total admitted claims from creditors are approximately Rs 22,006 crore.
The NCLAT hearing was deferred specifically because Chandra’s counsel questioned the legitimacy of the larger five-member NCLT bench. This situation arose after an earlier two-member NCLT bench had presented conflicting opinions regarding the proposed repayment plan, creating a deadlock.
The NCLT Bench Challenge Explained
Following the split decision from the two-member bench, a third member eventually approved a recovery plan valued at about Rs 6.25 crore. This approval, however, was met with appeals to the NCLAT from several significant financial institutions.
Major financial institutions involved include Union Bank of India, Canara Bank, and LIC Housing Finance.
Before the NCLAT’s decision to defer, the five-member NCLT special bench had already taken action to halt the operation of the repayment plan. It also issued a directive instructing Chandra not to dispose of any of his properties, either directly or indirectly, while the review was ongoing.
The special bench indicated that there was no majority consensus on the proposed repayment plan among its members, thereby preventing any final order from being implemented at that stage. Chandra maintains that the substantial Rs 22,006 crore claim does not represent money he personally borrowed.
Chandra’s Defense and Interim Directives
Instead, he argues that these claims primarily originate from personal guarantees he provided for loans taken by various companies within the Essel Group. This distinction is central to his defense against the creditors’ claims, which are currently under scrutiny.
The repayment plan remains highly contested as the legal proceedings continue. The NCLT’s directive regarding Chandra’s properties will remain in effect, prohibiting any disposal, until the NCLAT fully addresses the matter during its next scheduled hearing on October 7.