Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra’s repayment plan has hit a fresh roadblock after three National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) members failed to agree on whether and how it should be approved, according to Bar & Bench.
The NCLT has now constituted a five-member bench to decide Chandra’s personal insolvency case. The larger bench will hear the matter at 10.15 am on Tuesday.
The development adds a fresh twist to a case that had appeared to be settled after a third member approved the plan. However, one member had approved it with conditions, another had rejected it entirely, while the third approved it on different terms. The tribunal consequently held that no majority verdict had emerged.
advertisement
WHAT IS THE LATEST TWIST?
Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri said no final order could be passed because the third member, Nilesh Sharma, had taken a different view.
“All said and done, no majority view has emerged in the matter. In the wake, no order can be passed at this stage,” Bar & Bench quoted the tribunal as saying.
The five-member bench will now decide whether Chandra’s repayment plan should be approved and how it would affect creditors who opposed it.
WHY DID NO MAJORITY EMERGE?
The dispute began with a split verdict delivered by Bhardwaj and Puri on September 3, 2025, as per the Bar & Bench report.
Bhardwaj approved Chandra’s repayment plan but said it should bind only those creditors who supported it. Banks and financial institutions that voted against the plan would remain free to pursue other legal options to recover their dues.
Puri rejected the plan over serious procedural violations and raised questions about the conduct of the official overseeing the insolvency process. The matter was then referred to Sharma to resolve the split verdict.
Sharma approved the repayment plan but disagreed with Bhardwaj over the treatment of dissenting creditors. He said an approved plan could not be applied selectively and must bind every creditor, irrespective of how they voted.
Since no two members agreed on the same outcome, the NCLT concluded that no majority verdict existed.
WHAT IS CHANDRA’S REPAYMENT PLAN?
Chandra has proposed paying Rs 6.25 crore against admitted claims of around Rs 22,006 crore.
The claims arise from personal guarantees he gave for loans taken by several companies. The figure does not represent money borrowed directly by Chandra.
The plan has faced opposition from some lenders because the proposed payment amounts to only around 0.03 per cent of the admitted claims.
WHAT HAS CHANDRA SAID?
Chandra said the Rs 22,000-crore figure had created a “wrong perception” about the case.
He maintained that he had not personally borrowed the money from banks or financial institutions. “My borrowing is Rs 0,” he said in a statement on X.
According to Chandra, the figure represents personal guarantees he provided for loans taken by different companies.
He said guarantees worth around Rs 4,800 crore were given when the companies received the loans. The remaining guarantees were provided after the borrowers had defaulted.
WHAT DO HIS FIGURES SHOW?
Chandra said the companies originally borrowed around Rs 4,808 crore, of which Rs 3,803 crore had been repaid. He put the remaining amount at around Rs 998 crore.
However, lenders filed claims totalling around Rs 5,311 crore in his personal insolvency case. Chandra said Rs 1,049 crore of these claims had since been settled or paid, leaving around Rs 4,262 crore.
Chandra said the claims were higher because his personal guarantees covered loans taken by several companies. In some cases, a single lender had given separate loans to more than one company, with Chandra guaranteeing each loan.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Chandra has urged lenders to reconcile the outstanding amounts directly with the companies that borrowed the money.
A five-member NCLT bench will now examine the repayment plan and the three conflicting opinions. Until it gives its decision, Chandra’s Rs 6.25-crore proposal remains neither approved nor rejected.
The larger bench will decide whether the plan can be approved despite the objections and whether it should also bind creditors who voted against it.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
