Subhash Chandra says over ₹2,000 crore paid out of ₹4,800 crore, flags creditor claims

Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra on Monday said borrowing entities had repaid more than ₹2,000 crore of the ₹4,800 crore outstanding dues to creditors, as he sought to address concerns surrounding his personal insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) during an Instagram Live session.

He also cited cases where lenders continued to claim dues despite the borrowing entities having made repayments.

Chandra said the remaining dues would also be paid by the borrowing entities, although lenders and borrowers would need to sit together to reconcile the amounts.

“Out of 4800 crores, roughly more than 2000 crores have been paid and that is what the number has “been given to me. But the lenders will also have to sit and talk to the borrowers,” he said, adding that some borrowers had tried to engage with lenders but had not received responses. He cited HDFC as an example, saying some vendors had “never responded to their calls,” Chandra said.

His response came as the National Company Law Appelite Tribunal (NCLAT) is going to hear the matter tomorrow where the creditors have challenged the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Delhi’s order of the repayment of ₹6.5 by Chandra.

Creditors have claimed around ₹5,300 crore, while the borrowing entities acknowledge about ₹990 crore in their books, according to Chandra.

The NCLT-approved resolution plan requires Chandra to pay around ₹6.5 crore from his personal assets. The creditors have challenged the NCLT’s approval of Chandra’s repayment plan, arguing that the proposed payment of ₹6.5 crore does not adequately address the dues owed to them.

Chandra says lenders still claiming dues despite repayments

While asserting that he has stood by lenders and that some creditors are still claiming dues despite the underlying borrowers having made repayments. Chandra, however, maintained that he did not personally borrow the money and that his guarantees were given to lenders for loans taken by borrowing entities.

“Though I did not borrow personally, but I guaranteed the loan taken by borrowing entities. That's why they are making claims on me. And they are not wrong. Some of them are wrongly claiming,” he said.

He also claimed cases where lenders continue to claim amounts despite repayments by the borrowing entities.

“In one case, which was a very large case, I will not name our people, the borrowing entities' people were a little bit lethargic in taking the no-due certificate from that group. They did not take and that lender also is claiming money,” Chandra said.

Gap between lender claims and borrower dues

Chandra also highlighted a significant difference between the amounts acknowledged by borrowing entities and the claims made by lenders. He said the borrowing entities acknowledged around ₹990 crore in their books of accounts, based on what they had borrowed and repaid, while lenders opposing the insolvency resolution process before the National Company Law Tribunal had claimed around ₹5,300 crore in total.

“The borrowers only acknowledge, according to their books of accounts, about 990 crores,” Chandra said. “The lenders have claimed 5300 crores in total, those who are objecting to the NCLT proceeding.”

On his own financial position, Chandra said the resolution professional appointed by the court had assessed his net worth at ₹31.79 crore. He said this included a residential property worth around ₹25 crore, which is mortgaged and partly rented out.

Chandra said the ₹6.5-crore repayment under the resolution plan was based on his liquid assets and other resources assessed by the resolution professional.

“I can only pay what I have, no? Out of 6.79 crores, I am paying 6.5 crores,” he said.

He also rejected any suggestion that lenders had waived off the loans. “No, not yet,” he said when asked whether banks had waived any loans.

Chandra said he had previously sold key assets of the group to meet repayment obligations. “I have sold my crown jewels of the group, like Zee Entertainment Enterprise Limited, when I needed to pay the money. I have paid people together with their interest. It's a matter of record,” he said.

Giving personal guarantees is a mistak

He also said that giving personal guarantees for loans taken by group-linked borrowing entities was a “mistake”.

“Why did I give my personal guarantee? Yes, that was my mistake. It was business, it was nothing personal, but that mistake and that is the reason today I am in a way sitting in this witness box, “he said.