{"id":1829,"date":"2026-09-01T08:32:30","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T08:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/09\/01\/nclt-delhi-bench-stays-subhash-chandra-repayment-plan\/"},"modified":"2026-09-01T08:32:30","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T08:32:30","slug":"nclt-delhi-bench-stays-subhash-chandra-repayment-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/09\/01\/nclt-delhi-bench-stays-subhash-chandra-repayment-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLT Delhi Bench Stays Subhash Chandra&#8217;s \u20b96.25\u202fCrore Repayment Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<!-- Quick Adsense WordPress Plugin: http:\/\/quickadsense.com\/ -->\n<div class=\"9fece8afa224fd09e54b043d0febfb58\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- NR ATF -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-8898941184964366\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"4839033563\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"\r\n     data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\n<\/div>\n<p>A newly constituted five\u2011member bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in New Delhi issued a stay on Tuesday, September 1, on the approval of a repayment plan submitted by Dr. Subhash Chandra, founder of the Essel Group. The plan, which would have distributed \u20b96.25\u202fcrore to creditors against admitted claims totaling \u20b922,006.57\u202fcrore, was halted pending further consideration. In addition, the bench ordered that the guarantor, Dr. Chandra, may not alienate any of his properties, whether directly or indirectly.<\/p>\n<h2>Bench composition and immediate orders<\/h2>\n<p>The bench that delivered the stay was headed by NCLT President Justice Anupinder Singh. It also included Judicial Members Bachu Venkat Balara Das and Mahendra Khandelwal, together with Technical Members Atul Chaturvedi and Ravindra Chaturvedi. The bench\u2019s directive explicitly restrained Dr. Chandra from dealing with or transferring any of his assets. Notices regarding the stay have been issued to all parties involved in the proceedings.<\/p>\n<h2>Background of the repayment proposal<\/h2>\n<p>Dr. Chandra\u2019s proposal sought to pay \u20b96.25\u202fcrore to creditors and allocate \u20b925\u202flakh toward the costs of the insolvency process. When measured against the admitted claims of \u20b922,006.57\u202fcrore, the proposal represented a haircut of nearly 99.9\u202fpercent. Despite the steep reduction, creditors holding 80.814\u202fpercent of the voting share voted in favour of the plan, satisfying the statutory voting threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).<\/p>\n<h2>Procedural history leading to the five\u2011member bench<\/h2>\n<p>The matter originally came before a two\u2011member NCLT bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri. The two members could not reach a majority view on the plan\u2019s validity and scope, resulting in a deadlock. Under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, the case was referred to a larger bench because of the differing opinions.<\/p>\n<p>A third member, Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma, was appointed to break the tie. In an order dated August 25, Sharma favoured approval of the repayment plan, noting that the required voting threshold had been met. He observed that opposition from a subset of creditors or concerns about Dr. Chandra\u2019s financial dealings could not alone invalidate the proposal. Sharma also examined claims from 960 individuals represented by Anil Kumar and 300 individuals represented by Sunil Jain. He concluded that those claims were admitted based solely on verbal assurances from Dr. Chandra and lacked supporting material, but he determined that these irregularities did not undermine the insolvency proceedings as a whole. He further held that, once approved, the repayment plan would bind all creditors, including dissenting ones.<\/p>\n<p>When the matter returned to the original two\u2011member bench, it noted that the third member had issued an independent order rather than resolving the specific points of disagreement between the original members. The resulting impasse prompted the referral to the newly constituted five\u2011member bench, which subsequently stayed the plan and imposed the asset\u2011restriction order.<\/p>\n<h2>Implications of the stay<\/h2>\n<p>The stay effectively pauses any distribution of the \u20b96.25\u202fcrore to creditors until the five\u2011member bench resolves the outstanding legal questions. By restraining Dr. Chandra from alienating his properties, the bench seeks to protect the guarantor\u2019s assets from potential dissipation while the case is under review. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the creditors, had specifically sought protection against alienation of the guarantor\u2019s assets, a request that the bench incorporated into its order.<\/p>\n<p>The case is formally titled \u201cIndiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs Dr Subhash Chandra\u201d and is recorded under case number IB-97\/ND\/2022. The outcome of the bench\u2019s deliberations will determine whether the minimal repayment plan can proceed or whether a revised proposal must be crafted to satisfy both the statutory requirements of the IBC and the concerns raised by dissenting creditors and the technical member of the original bench.<\/p>\n<p>Stakeholders, including the Essel Group, the creditor consortium, and regulatory observers, will be closely monitoring the next steps of the NCLT\u2019s five\u2011member bench, as the decision carries significant ramifications for insolvency practice and creditor recoveries in high\u2011profile corporate restructurings.<\/p>\n\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A five\u2011member NCLT bench in Delhi has stayed the approval of Dr. Subhash Chandra&#8217;s repayment plan that would have paid creditors \u20b96.25\u202fcrore against claims of over \u20b922,000\u202fcrore.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1830,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[299],"tags":[1756,1634,1633,1800,1632],"class_list":["post-1829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-essel-group","tag-insolvency","tag-nclt","tag-repayment-plan","tag-subhash-chandra","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1829\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}