Archive · 28 Aug 2026
Reliance Rejects Chandra Allegations Amid Personal Insolvency Dispute
Reliance Group said Subhash Chandra’s claims about its media companies were baseless.
It said its media brands have never been used to attack anyone.
The disagreement happened while Chandra’s personal insolvency case was being considered.
A third member of the National Company Law Tribunal approved a plan for Chandra to pay ₹6.5 crore.
Creditors had said the plan was unfair because their admitted claims were about ₹22,006.57 crore.
They also called the plan unviable and unlawful.
Chandra said he had guaranteed loans but had not borrowed the money himself.
He said the claims against him were ₹3,992 crore and that borrowing companies had already repaid ₹43,000 crore.
The case will return to the original tribunal bench for a formal order.
Reliance Group called Subhash Chandra’s allegations against its media entities “baseless” and denied using its brands to attack anyone.
NCLT third member Nilesh Sharma approved a plan for Chandra to pay ₹6.5 crore, including ₹25 lakh in process costs.
Dissenting creditors led by LIC Housing Finance argued that the payout was unviable and unlawful against admitted claims of about ₹22,006.57 crore.
Chandra said claims against him totaled ₹3,992 crore as a personal guarantor, not more than ₹22,000 crore, and that he was not the borrower.
Chandra said ₹620 crore had been settled, ₹1,063 crore had been offered by borrowing entities, and those entities had repaid ₹43,000 crore.
- Who
- Reliance Group, Subhash Chandra, Mukesh Ambani, NCLT Member (Judicial) Nilesh Sharma, and dissenting creditors led by LIC Housing Finance.
- What
- Reliance denied Chandra’s allegations against its media entities while an NCLT third member approved a ₹6.5 crore repayment plan in Chandra’s personal insolvency case.
- When
- Reliance issued its statement on Friday; Sharma approved the plan on Tuesday, and Chandra disputed the claims on Thursday.
- Where
- The matter is being handled by the National Company Law Tribunal.
- Why
- The dispute arose over allegations concerning Reliance’s media entities and disagreements about the amount and repayment of liabilities attributed to Chandra in personal insolvency proceedings.
Reliance and Approved Plan
Chandra and Objecting Creditors
Allegations against media entities
Reliance and Approved Plan
Reliance Group strongly denied Chandra’s allegations and said its media brands have never been used, and will never be used, to attack anyone.
Chandra and Objecting Creditors
Chandra made allegations against Reliance’s media entities, but the articles do not provide their specific details.
Amount of liability
Reliance and Approved Plan
The NCLT proceedings relied on admitted creditor claims of approximately ₹22,006.57 crore when assessing the proposed repayment plan.
Chandra and Objecting Creditors
Chandra said the claim against him personally was ₹3,992 crore because he was a guarantor rather than the borrower, and said he had not borrowed money from any lender.
Viability of repayment plan
Reliance and Approved Plan
Nilesh Sharma approved a plan providing about ₹6.5 crore, including ₹25 lakh for process costs.
Chandra and Objecting Creditors
Dissenting creditors led by LIC Housing Finance argued that the proposed payment was unviable and unlawful, given the admitted claims.
- Reliance’s response
- Reliance Group described Chandra’s allegations and insinuations against its media entities as “baseless” and denied that its brands had been used to attack anyone.
- Approved plan
- NCLT third member Nilesh Sharma approved a plan requiring Chandra to pay about ₹6.5 crore.
- Payment allocation
- The plan proposed ₹6.25 crore toward creditor claims and ₹25 lakh toward insolvency process costs.
- Admitted claims
- Dissenting creditors said admitted claims totaled approximately ₹22,006.57 crore.
- Chandra’s stated liability
- Chandra said the aggregate claim against him as a personal guarantor was ₹3,992 crore.
- Other repayments and offers
- Chandra said ₹620 crore had been settled and borrowing entities had offered a further ₹1,063 crore.
- Next step
- The case will return to the original division bench for a formal order under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
