Regulators
NCLT stays Subhash Chandra repayment plan order, five-member bench to hear case afresh
Five-member bench orders fresh hearing after finding no clear majority in August 25 ruling
MUMBAI: A five-member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday stayed the operation of its August 25 verdict in the personal insolvency case against Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra, after finding that no clear majority view had emerged from the earlier proceedings.
The bench, headed by President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal, also restrained Chandra from directly or indirectly alienating any property and issued notices to all parties. The case will now be heard afresh.
The dispute relates to a repayment plan proposed by Chandra in personal insolvency proceedings initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Under the plan, Chandra proposed paying Rs 6.25 crore against admitted creditor claims of Rs 22,006.57 crore, with another Rs 25 lakh earmarked towards insolvency process costs.
The matter was initially heard by a two-member NCLT bench comprising judicial member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and technical member Reena Sinha Puri, who delivered differing opinions on the repayment plan.
Bhardwaj favoured approving the plan for creditors who had supported it while allowing dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, to pursue independent recovery remedies. Puri rejected the plan, citing serious defects in the process followed by the resolution professional.
The matter was subsequently referred to a third member, judicial member Nilesh Sharma. On August 25, Sharma held that the repayment plan should be approved, while excluding certain claims submitted on behalf of 1,260 individuals and redistributing the corresponding amount among eligible creditors. He also held that the approved plan would bind all creditors, including those who opposed it, under Section 115 of the IBC.
However, when the matter returned to the original two-member bench on August 31, it found that no majority view had emerged. The bench noted that the technical member had rejected the plan, the judicial member had sought to restrict it to supporting creditors, while the third member had approved it and made it binding on all creditors.
Following the lack of consensus, the matter was referred to the NCLT President, who constituted the present five-member bench to hear the case afresh.
