Archive · 29 Aug 2026
Banks Challenge Subhash Chandra’s Rs 6.25-Crore Insolvency Payout
Subhash Chandra had promised to personally repay some debts connected to companies associated with the Essel Group.
Creditors claimed about Rs 22,006.57 crore from him.
His repayment plan offered only Rs 6.25 crore, plus Rs 25 lakh for the insolvency process.
Most voting creditors supported the plan, so the tribunal approved it.
Banks disagreed and said several supporters were connected to Chandra’s family or business interests.
They argued that these votes should not have been counted.
The tribunal also found that 1,260 claims had not been properly checked.
Chandra’s office said the allegations were inaccurate and that some businesses had been separated from his interests years earlier.
The dispute concerns whether the voting and claims were handled correctly under insolvency law.
The National Company Law Tribunal approved Subhash Chandra’s proposal to pay creditors Rs 6.25 crore, plus Rs 25 lakh in process costs.
The plan received 80.814% of votes, while banks opposing it held 19.186% of the voting share.
Banks alleged that five entities supporting the plan, holding 61.78% of votes, were associates or related parties of Chandra.
The tribunal identified inadequate verification of claims, including 1,260 claims allegedly lacking sufficient documentary support.
Chandra’s office denied the allegations, saying some entities belonged to Jawahar Goel and did not qualify as associates under insolvency law.
- Who
- Subhash Chandra, his creditors, several creditor entities, banks, the resolution professional, and the National Company Law Tribunal.
- What
- The tribunal approved a repayment plan offering Rs 6.25 crore to creditors, while banks challenged the inclusion and voting rights of allegedly related entities.
- When
- The article does not specify when the tribunal order or voting took place.
- Where
- Before the National Company Law Tribunal in India.
- Why
- The repayment plan was approved after receiving the required majority of creditor votes, although banks alleged that related-party claims and votes had been improperly admitted.
Banks and challenging creditors
Subhash Chandra’s office and plan supporters
Whether related entities could vote
Banks and challenging creditors
Banks argued that Veena Investments, Direct Media Distribution Ventures, World Crest Advisors, Lemonade Capital Advisors, and Corpcall Capital Advisors were associates or related parties whose votes should not count.
Subhash Chandra’s office and plan supporters
Chandra’s office said the claim was inaccurate and that some referenced entities belonged to Jawahar Goel, whose business interests were separated from Chandra’s through a family business division in 2008–09.
Validity of admitted claims
Banks and challenging creditors
Creditors alleged that several claims were inadequately scrutinised, and the tribunal found that claims had been admitted without sufficient documentary verification or meaningful due diligence.
Subhash Chandra’s office and plan supporters
The debtor’s counsel argued that certain downstream subsidiaries could not be treated as associates if their parent company did not meet that classification under the applicable law.
Fairness of the repayment plan
Banks and challenging creditors
Banks opposed paying Rs 6.25 crore against admitted claims of approximately Rs 22,006.57 crore and challenged the process used to approve the plan.
Subhash Chandra’s office and plan supporters
The plan’s supporters constituted the voting majority, and under the insolvency mechanism an approved plan binds dissenting creditors after tribunal sanction.
- Approved repayment
- Rs 6.25 crore to creditors
- Process costs
- Rs 25 lakh
- Total admitted claims
- Approximately Rs 22,006.57 crore
- Plan approval vote
- 80.814% of votes cast
- Banks’ vote share
- 19.186%, with all banks opposing the plan
- Alleged associated entities’ vote share
- Five entities collectively held 61.78% of votes and supported the plan
- Claims questioned by the tribunal
- 1,260 individual claims were admitted without adequate documentary verification