NCLT’s five-member bench stays ₹6.5-crore repayment plan in Subhash Chandra personal insolvency case, issues notices to all parties involved

The five-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday stayed the ₹6.5-crore repayment plan in the personal insolvency case of the Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra.

The development came after the NCLT on Monday formed its first-ever five-member committee to decide on the high-profile case.

According to the PTI, the NCLT directs Subhash Chandra not to dispose of any property during pendency. Also the five-judge bench issues notices to parties involved in personal insolvency matters.

The Bench, comprising President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal, Judicial Members Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, and Mahendra Khandelwal, and Technical Members Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi, said today that there was no clear majority view on the previous verdict.

Hence, the Bench decided to hear the case afresh and issued notices to all parties involved.

In this case, several creditors, including HDFC Group, LIC Housing Finance and Union Bank, among others, are alleging that Chandra is liable as a personal guarantor for about ₹22,006 crore in admitted creditor claims, but his approved plan offers creditors only ₹6.25 crore.

What is Chandra saying in response to the allegations?

However, rejecting the allegations, Chandra earlier claimed that the dispute is centred around the repayment of ₹4,800 crore, of which more than ₹2,000 crore has been paid.

While responding to questions during an Instagram Live call on Monday, Chandra also claimed that some of the creditors are still claiming the dues despite their amount having been paid. He also said some lenders were not responding when the borrowers were trying to reach out to them to resolve the dispute.

Chandra suggested that, to resolve the entire issue, lenders and borrowers need to sit together. "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.

Chandra, however, maintained that he had not personally borrowed the money and that his guarantees were provided to lenders for loans taken by the 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 added.