New Delhi, September 23, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra has approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging an order passed by a five-member Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which stayed approval of his repayment plan and restrained him from alienating his properties.
The appeal came up before a three-member NCLAT Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice Yogesh Khanna (retd) and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra. The Bench directed Chandra’s counsel to serve copies of the appeal on the creditors and implead them as parties.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 29.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the creditors submitted that they had neither received advance copies of the appeal nor been impleaded as parties, despite having participated in the proceedings before the NCLT.
Chandra has challenged the constitution of the five-member NCLT Bench and argued that its September 1 order “travels beyond the limited statutory jurisdiction contemplated” under the Companies Act, 2013.
The challenge arises from the NCLT’s September 1 decision to stay the operation of an earlier order approving Chandra’s repayment plan and to hear the matter afresh after finding that no clear majority view had emerged.
The five-member Bench, headed by NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal (retd), also restrained Chandra from directly or indirectly alienating his properties. The direction followed a request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the creditors.
The insolvency proceedings against Chandra were initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. The case has seen conflicting orders over the proposed repayment plan.
The original two-member NCLT Bench had delivered a split verdict, following which the matter was referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
On August 25, Sharma approved the repayment plan under Section 114 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), while directing that certain claims submitted on behalf of 960 and 300 individuals be excluded. He further ordered redistribution of the amount allocated to those claims among the remaining eligible creditors.
The third member held that the approved plan would bind all creditors, including those who had opposed it.
However, when the matter returned to the original two-member Bench, it observed that the differences between the members had not been resolved and that no majority view had emerged. The matter was subsequently placed before the NCLT President, who constituted the five-member Bench to hear the proceedings afresh.
The insolvency case has drawn attention because of the substantial gap between the admitted creditor claims and the amount proposed under Chandra’s repayment plan.
Several creditors, including financial institutions, have opposed the plan and questioned the recovery proposed under it.
Chandra, however, has disputed the description of the proceedings as a massive personal debt write-off. He has maintained that he stood as a personal guarantor for loans taken by borrowing entities associated with the wider Essel Group and did not personally borrow the money from the lenders.
He has also argued that the Rs 22,006 crore figure represents claims filed in the insolvency proceedings and should not be treated as his personal outstanding debt.
FOLLOW NOW
