Latest Developments in Subhash Chandra’s Insolvency Case
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has introduced a new development in the ongoing insolvency proceedings involving Subhash Chandra, the founder of Zee. On Monday, the tribunal declared that no majority verdict was achieved concerning Chandra’s repayment proposal to his creditors. This conclusion arose because the opinion of the third NCLT member diverged significantly from those of the original bench members. This case is formally recognized as India Bulls Vs Subhash Chandra.
The bench, composed of Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, decided that issuing an order on the repayment plan is currently unfeasible. Consequently, the tribunal has referred the matter back to the NCLT President under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The tribunal stated, “All said and done, no majority view has emerged in the matter. In the wake, no order can be passed at this stage.”
Conflicting Opinions Among NCLT Members
This declaration follows a detailed 144-page opinion delivered by the third member, Nilesh Sharma, on August 25. Initially, this opinion was perceived as an endorsement of Chandra’s repayment strategy. The initial conflict stemmed from a split decision by Bhardwaj and Puri on September 3, 2025. Bhardwaj had endorsed the plan but limited its impact to creditors who supported it, allowing dissenting banks and financial institutions to pursue other debt recovery methods.
Conversely, Puri completely opposed the plan, citing procedural violations during the personal insolvency resolution process. She raised concerns about the inclusion of entities allegedly linked to Chandra in the creditor voting process and criticized the resolution professional’s conduct.
As a result, the matter was reassigned to Sharma as the third member. While Sharma approved the plan, he disagreed with Bhardwaj’s stance regarding dissenting creditors. According to Sharma, Section 115 did not allow a selectively binding repayment plan. He emphasized that the plan should apply uniformly to all creditors, regardless of their voting stance. Additionally, Sharma excluded claims submitted by Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals, redistributing their repayment amounts among the eligible creditors.
Current Status and Implications
According to the original bench’s recent order, these divergent opinions have substantially altered the repayment plan’s execution. The NCLT commented, “The approval of repayment plan by confining the same to assenting creditors, with liberty to banks/financial institutions/dissenting creditors to recover their debt, as held by Member (J) in the original order, is different from approval of the plan, extinguishing the claim of all the creditors including banks and financial institutions as held by the Ld. Third Member.”
The tribunal concluded that the third member’s decision was an independent order and did not fully concur with either of the original opinions. Legally, the opinion dated August 25 remains unrevoked, but it never became a definitive approval order since it failed to achieve a statutory majority according to the original bench’s assessment.
As a result, the issue is being referred back to the NCLT President. This development also implies that the appeal currently pending with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has become redundant.
