2 days ago
How Chandra’s ₹6.5 Crore Repayment Plan Survived NCLT Scrutiny
Subhash Chandra has a personal insolvency case involving money claimed by lenders.
The NCLT approved a plan giving creditors ₹6.5 crore, even though their admitted claims totaled more than ₹22,000 crore.
The plan was supported by creditors holding about 81% of the voting power.
Some banks said certain companies that voted for the plan were connected to Chandra.
They argued that those votes should not count.
One NCLT member raised concerns about the insolvency process and the lack of a forensic audit.
Another member said there was not enough evidence to reject the disputed creditors’ claims.
The tribunal also said the resolution professional did not have the required investigative powers under the personal-insolvency rules.
Several lenders now plan to appeal, while Chandra says additional loan dues may be settled after reconciliation.
The NCLT approved Subhash Chandra’s ₹6.5-crore repayment plan against admitted creditor claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
The plan received support from creditors holding about 80.81%, or nearly 81%, of the voting share.
Objecting lenders alleged that several voting entities were associates or related to Chandra and should have been excluded.
The NCLT said the disputed entities were not proven to meet the IBC’s statutory definition of an associate.
Union Bank of India, Canara Bank, LIC Housing Finance and HDFC-linked lenders plan to challenge the order before the NCLAT.
- Who
- Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra, lenders, borrowers, the resolution professional and the National Company Law Tribunal.
- What
- The NCLT approved a ₹6.5-crore repayment plan in Chandra’s personal-guarantee insolvency case, while lenders challenged the voting process and the valuation of his assets.
- Where
- The case was heard by the National Company Law Tribunal, with proposed appeals before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
- When
- The insolvency proceedings began in 2022; the NCLT decision and Chandra’s statement were reported on August 31, 2026.
- Why
- Chandra said the available assets supported the repayment plan and that ₹4,262 crore in remaining dues required reconciliation; lenders disputed the plan, asset valuation and voting eligibility.
Chandra and Supporting Creditors’ Position
Objecting Lenders’ Position
Repayment amount
Chandra and Supporting Creditors’ Position
Chandra said the plan offered all available realisable assets, based on disclosed assets of about ₹31.79 crore, including roughly ₹6.25 crore for creditors and ₹25 lakh for process costs.
Objecting Lenders’ Position
Banks disputed the valuation and argued that Chandra’s repayment capacity was understated, citing earlier net-worth certificates reporting assets above ₹40,000 crore.
Voting eligibility
Chandra and Supporting Creditors’ Position
The NCLT held that the disputed entities had not been shown to satisfy the statutory definition of an associate under Section 79(2)(g) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so their votes could not be excluded.
Objecting Lenders’ Position
Objecting lenders alleged that Veena Investments, Direct Media Distribution Ventures, World Crest Advisors, Lemonade Capital Advisors and Corpcall Capital Advisors were associated with Chandra and that excluding their votes would have prevented the plan from reaching the required threshold.
Process and investigation
Chandra and Supporting Creditors’ Position
The NCLT concluded that personal-insolvency provisions did not give the resolution professional the investigative powers needed to conduct a comprehensive forensic inquiry into Chandra’s finances.
Objecting Lenders’ Position
One NCLT member and several lenders raised concerns about the resolution professional’s conduct, the lack of an independent inquiry and the absence of a forensic audit. Canara Bank’s audit request failed because it lacked sufficient voting power.
Future recovery
Chandra and Supporting Creditors’ Position
Chandra said borrowers had assured him that the remaining ₹4,262 crore would be settled after reconciling the figures with lenders.
Objecting Lenders’ Position
Lenders are pursuing or considering appeals before the NCLAT and may challenge the plan over alleged voting irregularities and other process concerns.
Key facts
- Approved repayment plan
- ₹6.5 crore
- Admitted creditor claims
- ₹22,006.57 crore
- Estimated creditor recovery
- About 0.03%, implying a haircut of approximately 99.97%
- Disbursements reported by Chandra
- Approximately ₹4,808 crore
- Borrower repayments reported by Chandra
- ₹3,803 crore
- Claims filed against Chandra’s personal guarantee
- ₹5,311 crore
- Claims remaining after reported settlements
- ₹4,262 crore
- Plan support
- Creditors holding approximately 80.81% of voting share voted in favour
Quotes
Nilesh Sharma
NCLT Member (Judicial) who ruled that the disputed creditor claims lacked sufficient evidence of defects
“The objecting creditors have failed to establish that their claims were wrongly admitted, and their other allegations regarding the said creditors are unsupported by evidence.”
thehindubusinessline.com
“If any substantial asset is discovered after approval of the repayment plan and issuance of the discharge order, creditors may seek recall of the approval and discharge order.”
thehindubusinessline.com
Sources
Related news
NCLT Approves Subhash Chandra’s ₹6.5-Crore Repayment Plan
NCLAT to Hear Creditors’ Challenge to Chandra Repayment Plan
NCLT Stays Subhash Chandra’s Repayment Plan, Bars Asset Sales
Banks Challenge Subhash Chandra’s Rs 6.25-Crore Insolvency Payout
NCLT Approves Subhash Chandra’s Rs 6.5-Crore Repayment Plan
NCLT Approval Exposes Huge Subhash Chandra Creditor Recovery Gap
India Draws Record $127 Billion Through FCNR Deposit Scheme
Major Banks Cut FCNR Deposit Rates After Subsidy Ends
Uber Driver Returns ₹37,000 Sent by Mistake, Refuses Reward
ICICI Bank Nears HDFC Bank as Nifty’s Top Influence
Brokerages Suggest HDFC Bank, PB Fintech, Parag Milk Foods
