Subhash Chandra challenges NCLT asset restraint in repayment plan case

Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra has challenged an NCLT order restraining him from alienating assets in proceedings over his proposed Rs 6.25-crore repayment plan

Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra has approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), challenging an NCLT order restraining him from alienating his assets in proceedings concerning his proposed ₹6.25-crore repayment plan.

 

A three-member NCLAT Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice (retd) Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra on Wednesday directed Chandra to serve copies of the appeal on the concerned creditors and posted the matter for hearing on September 29.

 

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Chandra, said the appeal challenged the September 1 order of a five-member special bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

 

 

Chandra has primarily challenged the jurisdiction exercised by the five-member bench, arguing that it exceeded the limited scope of a reference arising from differences between members of the original NCLT bench.

 

He has also questioned the direction restraining him from alienating “any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly”, besides the decision to stay the August 25 opinion of the third member and seek fresh replies in pending applications.

 

The dispute arises from personal insolvency proceedings initiated against Chandra by Indiabulls Housing Finance under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

 

Under Chandra’s repayment proposal, ₹6.25 crore was to be paid to creditors against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore, with another ₹25 lakh earmarked for insolvency process costs.

 

The proposal was initially considered by NCLT Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, who delivered divergent opinions. Bhardwaj favoured approving the plan for creditors who supported it while allowing dissenting creditors to pursue independent recovery remedies. Puri rejected the proposal, citing defects in the process followed by the resolution professional.

 

The matter was subsequently referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma as the third member under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.

 

On August 25, Sharma favoured approval of the plan, subject to the exclusion of certain claims filed on behalf of 1,260 individuals. He also held that the plan would bind all creditors, including dissenting ones, under Section 115 of the IBC.

 

The original bench later held that no majority view had emerged. The matter was consequently placed before the NCLT President, who constituted the five-member bench.