Subhash Chandra challenges NCLT stay on asset transfer in Rs 6.5 crore repayment case

Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra has approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against an NCLT (National Company Law Tribunal) order restraining him from selling or transferring his assets in connection with his personal insolvency case, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

A three-member NCLAT Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice (retd) Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra took up the appeal and directed Chandra to serve copies of the plea on the creditors.

The tribunal posted the matter for hearing on September 29.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Chandra, told the NCLAT that the appeal challenges the September 1 order passed by a five-member special bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Several creditors, however, told the appellate tribunal that they had either not received copies of the appeal or had not been made parties to it, despite having participated in the NCLT proceedings.

The NCLAT then directed Chandra to provide copies of the appeal to the parties appearing before it during the day and take steps to implead the necessary parties.WHAT IS THE DISPUTE ABOUT?

The case relates to a repayment plan proposed by Chandra in personal insolvency proceedings initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Chandra proposed a Rs 6.25 crore payout to creditors against admitted claims of 22,006.57 crore, with an additional Rs 25 lakh set aside for the insolvency process costs.

The repayment plan was first heard by an NCLT bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, who gave different views on the proposal.

Bhardwaj supported approval of the plan only for creditors who had backed it. He proposed that dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, should be free to pursue separate remedies to recover their dues.

Puri, however, rejected the plan, citing serious defects in the process followed by the resolution professional.THIRD MEMBER BACKS REPAYMENT PLAN

The matter was subsequently placed before a third member, Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma, under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.

On August 25, Sharma ruled in favour of approving the repayment plan. However, he directed that claims filed through Anil Kumar for 960 individuals and Sunil Jain for 300 individuals be excluded. The amounts set aside for these claims were to be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.

Sharma also held that the approved plan would be binding on all creditors, including those who had opposed it, under Section 115 of the IBC.NCLT REFERS MATTER TO FIVE-MEMBER BENCH

When the matter returned to the original two-member bench, it held on August 31 that there was no majority view following the third member's order.

The bench noted that the Technical Member had rejected the plan, the Judicial Member had proposed limiting it to supporting creditors, while the third member had approved it and made it binding on all creditors.

With all three judgments taking different positions, the matter was referred again to the NCLT President.

The President then constituted a five-member bench to hear the matter.

The larger bench subsequently restrained Chandra from alienating any of his assets. It also stayed the order that had upheld his proposal to pay Rs 6.25 crore to creditors against admitted claims of Rs 22,006.57 crore.

Chandra has now challenged this order before the NCLAT.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for public sector entities, while advocate Diwakar Maheshwari of Khaitan & Co appeared for IndusInd Bank.- EndsPublished By: Jasmine anandPublished On: Sep 23, 2026 12:02 IST