The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has formed a five-member special bench to break a judicial deadlock surrounding Zee founder Subhash Chandra’s high-stakes personal insolvency repayment plan. The intervention comes after an initial division bench and a subsequently appointed third member delivered three entirely distinct rulings on the matter.
Key Highlights of the Case:
-
The Scale of Debt: Subhash Chandra, Chairman of the Essel Group, acted as a personal guarantor for a staggering ₹22,006 crore borrowed by various group companies.
-
The Repayment Proposal: The restructuring plan entails a payment of ₹1,494 crore from the principal borrowers alongside a modest ₹6.25 crore payout from Chandra as the personal guarantor—a proposition that has triggered severe pushback from lenders facing massive write-downs.
-
Dissenting Lenders: Key financial institutions, including LIC Housing Finance, HDFC Bank, and Union Bank of India, have fiercely opposed the resolution plan, arguing that a ₹6.25 crore payout on a ₹22,000+ crore admitted claim amounts to an unacceptable 99.97% haircut and alleges procedural impropriety.
-
Judicial Deadlock: Following a split verdict by the original two-member panel (where one member rejected the plan and another partially approved it), the matter was referred to a third member, Nilesh Sharma, who delivered an independent approval under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Because this created three separate and conflicting judicial perspectives, no legal majority could be established.
The Special Bench Composition:
To resolve the unprecedented impasse, the tribunal’s president invoked Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, to set up the high-level five-member bench. The panel comprises:
-
Justice (Retd.) Anupinder Singh Grewal (Tribunal President)
-
Bachu Venkat Balaram Das (Judicial Member)
-
Mahendra Khandelwal (Judicial Member)
-
Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member)
-
Ravindra Chaturvedi (Technical Member)
Legal experts note that the constitution of a five-member bench is a rare procedural step triggered by the complex overlap of split opinions and independent third-member findings. The special bench commenced proceedings to adjudicate the fate of the restructuring plan and address the grievances raised by the dissenting financial creditors.
