Tertius News is an AI-native newsroom: an AI model reads the linked source articles below and extracts what each outlet reported, so you can compare their coverage side by side. How this works →
NCLT Stays Subhash Chandra's Repayment Plan Approval, Restrains Property Alienation
By Tertius News AI Desk4 distinct · 4 mastheads · 4 articlesVersion 3Coverage Published
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday stayed its August 25 order that had approved a repayment plan proposed by Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra in his personal insolvency case, according to multiple sources. The tribunal said the earlier orders did not reflect a clear majority view and decided to hear the matter afresh.
The five-member bench, headed by NCLT President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal, issued notices to all parties and directed that Chandra, as guarantor, shall not sell, transfer, alienate, encumber or otherwise deal with his properties, directly or indirectly, during the pendency of the case.
Under the repayment plan, Chandra had proposed to pay ₹6.25 crore to creditors against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore. An additional ₹25 lakh was set aside towards insolvency resolution process costs.
The stay comes after the original two-member bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri failed to reach a consensus on the plan. Bhardwaj supported approval only for creditors who had backed the plan, and suggested that dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, should be free to pursue separate recovery proceedings. Puri rejected the plan, citing serious procedural flaws in the process followed by the resolution professional.
The matter was then referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. On August 25, Sharma approved the repayment plan, but excluded claims submitted by Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and those submitted by Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals. He directed that the amounts earmarked for those excluded claims be redistributed among other eligible creditors. Sharma also ruled that the approved plan would be binding on all creditors, including those who opposed it.
However, the newly constituted five-member bench observed that no majority view emerged despite the reference to the third member, and therefore stayed the earlier order. The bench clarified that the August 25 judgment cannot be given effect to at this stage and that all parties would be heard at length before the matter proceeds.
The insolvency proceedings relate to personal guarantees furnished by Chandra for borrowings of Essel Group-linked companies. Indiabulls Housing Finance, now known as Sammaan Capital, initiated proceedings against him in 2022 after a loan extended to Vivek Infracon turned bad. The insolvency plea was admitted in 2024, with several other creditors subsequently participating.
The matter had also reached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the dissenting creditors. Mehta informed the appellate tribunal about the constitution of the five-member bench and the stay of the August 25 order, and requested time until Wednesday to decide on whether to press the appeal. The NCLAT agreed to hear the creditors' challenge after Mehta sought urgent listing.
The tribunal also mentioned lapses in admitting claims pertaining to 960 individuals through Anil Kumar and 300 individuals through Sunil Jain on the basis of verbal assurances. Sharma held that these unsupported claims should not have been admitted but found that the lapse did not adversely impact the entire insolvency process.
The date of the next hearing will be made clear once the written order is issued by the bench.
How each outlet told it
A framing line is our reading of that outlet's own text — an interpretation, not a quotation and not a fact we assert. Check it against what the outlet published.
Framing: NCLT stays order on Subhash Chandra's Rs 6.25-crore repayment plan; bars alienation of guarantor's property — descriptive and legalistic, focusing on procedural developments
Facts Included:
NCLT stayed the operation of the August 25 order approving Subhash Chandra's Rs 6.25-crore repayment plan
The five-member bench, headed by NCLT President Justice (retd) Anupinder Singh Grewal, directed that the guarantor shall not sell, transfer, alienate, encumber or otherwise deal with his properties
The bench issued notices to all parties, including Chandra, and sought their replies
The August 25 judgment cannot be given effect to at this stage and all parties would be heard at length
The original two-member NCLT bench consisting of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri held that no majority opinion had emerged
Third member Nilesh Sharma, on August 25, gave an opinion favouring approval of the plan, but the original members subsequently found that the three members had taken materially different positions
The plan had faced strong opposition from several lenders, who questioned the extremely low recovery and raised objections concerning the voting process and the participation of entities allegedly linked to Chandra
The matter also reached NCLAT, where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the dissenting creditors
Mehta informed the appellate tribunal about the latest development before the NCLT, including the constitution of the five-member bench and the stay of the August 25 order
Mehta requested NCLAT to grant him time until Wednesday to decide whether to press the appeal
NCLAT agreed to hear the creditors' challenge after Mehta sought urgent listing, arguing that allowing the order to operate could defeat the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
The insolvency proceedings relate to Chandra's personal guarantees for borrowings of Essel Group-linked companies
Indiabulls Housing Finance, now known as Indiabulls Housing Finance, had initiated proceedings in 2022 after a loan to Vivek Infracon turned bad
The insolvency plea was admitted in 2024, with several other creditors participating
Framing: Headline not available; only the article body was provided. — The tone is neutral and factual, reporting the tribunal's actions and the differing opinions of the original bench members.
Facts Included:
A five-member Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday stayed the August 25 order passed by a smaller bench in the personal insolvency case involving Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra, Bar and Bench reported.
A further ₹25 lakh was set aside to meet the costs of the insolvency process.
The Bench said there was no clear majority view in the earlier orders.
It has therefore decided to hear the matter afresh and issued notices to all parties, the news report said.
The tribunal also restrained Chandra from alienating any property, either directly or indirectly, while the case is being heard.
The repayment plan was initially heard by an NCLT Bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri.
The two members gave different opinions on the proposal.
Bhardwaj supported approval of the plan only for creditors who had backed it.
He also proposed allowing dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, to take separate steps to recover their dues, the news report said.
Puri rejected the plan, citing serious flaws in the process followed by the resolution professional.
The matter was subsequently referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Framing: Emphasizes NCLT's stay on previous order and issuance of notices to Subhash Chandra and lenders in the ₹6.5 crore repayment case.
Facts Included:
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday issued a stay on the previous order
The previous order approved a ₹5 crore repayment plan against admitted claims of more than ₹22,000 crore against Subhash Chandra
The NCLT special bench clarified that the tie-breaker judge's approval of Chandra's resolution plan is not the final or majority view, India Today reported
The matter is placed before special five-member NCLT bench after differences in the orders passed by 3 members
The NCLT special bench said that he, as the guarantor, shall not alienate any of his properties directly or indirectly
Notices were issued to Subhash Chandra as well as lenders in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) repayment case
Referring to Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, the bench said that 'no majority view emerges' despite reference to a third member
On August 25, an NCLT bench gave a split verdict on the approval of the repayment plan
Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma supported the approval, stating that the required majority of creditors voted in its favour
Sharma maintained that opposition by some creditors or objections concerning Chandra's financial affairs did not make the plan not worth approving
The tribunal mentioned lapses in admitting claims pertaining to 960 individuals through Anil Kumar and 300 individuals through Sunil Jain on the basis of verbal assurances
Sharma held that these unsupported claims shouldn't have been admitted but found that the lapse did not adversely impact the entire insolvency process
Date of the hearing will be made clear once written order is issued by the bench
Framing: The headline presents the NCLT's action as a 'stay' of a personal insolvency plan and poses a question about the fate of a specific amount, highlighting uncertainty and the magnitude of the financial figure. — Neutral and factual, focusing on legal procedural developments.
Facts Included:
NCLT stayed its August 25 order
The stay was on a repayment plan by Subhash Chandra
The NCLT said earlier orders did not reflect a clear majority view
The tribunal decided to hear the case afresh
Notices were issued to all parties
Chandra was directed not to sell, transfer or alienate his properties
The earlier plan was binding on creditors who voted against it
An additional ₹25 lakh was proposed for insolvency-related expenses
Member Bhardwaj supported approval but only for voting creditors
Bhardwaj suggested dissenting creditors could pursue separate recovery
Member Puri opposed the proposal due to procedural shortcomings
The matter was referred to a third member under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act
Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma approved the plan on August 25
Sharma excluded claims from 960 individuals represented by Anil Kumar
Sharma excluded claims from 300 individuals represented by Sunil Jain
Sharma directed redistribution of excluded amounts
Sharma ruled the plan binding on all creditors under Section 115 of the IBC
AI-extracted; can misattribute a claim — see Methodology.
Each row is one claim, attributed to the outlet whose wording states it most clearly. Confidence rates how directly the source text states the claim — explicit and unhedged rates high; hedged, pieced-together, or internally inconsistent statements rate lower. It does not measure whether the claim is true. Status is Contested when two claims on this page negate each other; otherwise it counts the distinct outlets we found asserting that specific claim — so a single-source claim can still show high confidence, and a multi-source claim can show medium. Every one of those outlets is named beside the status, so you can check the count against the list. For claims extracted before we began storing that list, the row says so: it names the outlet the claim is quoted from and states that we have not recorded which outlets backed it. Outlets wrote at different times, so a figure that evolves — a casualty count, for example — can legitimately differ between rows; check the "as of" time next to each claim's source.
Claim
Confidence
Status
ClaimA five-member Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) stayed the August 25 order approving Subhash Chandra's repayment plan in his personal insolvency case.
ClaimSharma ruled that the approved repayment plan would be binding on all creditors, including those who had opposed it, under Section 115 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
ClaimThe matter reached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), where Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the dissenting creditors.
ClaimIndiabulls Housing Finance, now known as Sammaan Capital, initiated proceedings against Chandra in 2022 after a loan extended to Vivek Infracon turned bad.
ClaimThe tribunal mentioned lapses in admitting claims pertaining to 960 individuals through Anil Kumar and 300 individuals through Sunil Jain on the basis of Chandra's verbal assurances.
ClaimSharma held that these unsupported claims shouldn't have been admitted but found that the lapse did not adversely impact the entire insolvency process.