NCLT's first-ever 5-member Bench to decide on Subhash Chandra repayment plan
A Division Bench had failed to reach a majority verdict in a personal insolvency case involving claims of more than ₹22,000 crore
On August 31, 2026, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) established a unique five-member Bench to determine media mogul Subhash Chandra's repayment strategy in a personal insolvency case involving over ₹22,000 crore in claims. The Division Bench had failed to reach a consensus on a proposed ₹6.5 crore repayment plan, prompting the tribunal's president to form the all-new Bench.
The five-member panel, led by President Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, consists of Bachu Venkat, Balaram Das, Mahendra Khandelwal, Atul Chaturvedi, and Ravindra Chaturvedi. The first hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 10.15 a.m. in the Principal Bench of NCLT.
Earlier, a two-member Division Bench comprised of Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Reena Sinha Puri issued a split decision on the repayment plan. The third member's August 26 order, endorsing the ₹6.5 crore plan, was sent back to the original Division Bench for a formal order, as required by Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. However, the Division Bench announced on Monday that no majority view had emerged from reconsidering the matter, due to a differing opinion from the third member.
The Bench stated, "No order can be passed at this stage" as the third member had made an independent decision. While the Member (Technical) rejected the plan, the Member (Judicial) allowed exemptions for creditors who approved and dissenting creditors to pursue recovery of their debts. The third member approved the plan but extinguished the rights of all creditors by applying Section 115(1) of the Code uniformly, the Bench explained.
In a precautionary step, dissenting lenders of Chandra moved the Insolvency Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), citing the third member's approval of the ₹6.5 crore payment by the Essel Group chairman against creditor claims of approximately ₹22,006.57 crore in his personal insolvency resolution process. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing LIC Housing Finance and Canara Bank, argued that allowing the order would "defeat the very purpose of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code" and requested a second-half-day hearing.
However, NCLAT agreed to hear the matter on Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. The dispute centers around the interpretation of Section 79(2)(g) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and its interaction with the procedural provisions of Section 115(1), which governs the approval of repayment plans by creditors.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
