New Delhi. Zee Group founder Subhash Chandra has approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), challenging a September 1 order passed by a five-member special bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The order had restrained Chandra from transferring or alienating any of his assets, directly or indirectly. During the hearing of the appeal, NCLAT directed Chandra to provide copies of the plea to the creditors involved in the matter and scheduled the next hearing for September 29.
The dispute arises from personal insolvency proceedings initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Chandra had proposed a repayment plan under which ₹6.25 crore would be paid to creditors. An additional ₹25 lakh was earmarked towards insolvency process costs. Against this, the total admitted claims were stated to be ₹22,006.57 crore.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, appearing for Chandra, told NCLAT that the appeal primarily challenges the September 1 order of the NCLT’s special bench. During the hearing, several creditors objected that they had either not received copies of the appeal or had not been made parties despite having participated in the proceedings before the NCLT. NCLAT subsequently directed Chandra to provide copies of the appeal to the appearing parties during the day and take steps to implead the necessary parties.
In his appeal, Chandra has principally argued that the NCLT’s Special Principal Bench went beyond the limited issues on which the original members had differed. He has also challenged the sweeping restraint preventing him from alienating “any assets whatsoever either directly or indirectly.”
Chandra has further objected to the direction staying the reasoned opinion delivered by the third member on August 25 and requiring fresh replies in pending applications. According to his case, these directions effectively reopened the entire proceedings instead of limiting the exercise to the specific points on which the original members had expressed differing views.
The dispute also involves the interpretation of Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The provision applies when members of an NCLT bench differ on one or more points. In such circumstances, the differing members state the points of disagreement and refer them to the NCLT President, who may place the matter before one or more other members. The matter is then decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard it.
Chandra’s contention is that this mechanism is intended only to resolve the identified points of disagreement. According to him, it cannot be used to conduct a fresh hearing of the entire dispute or impose a broad restraint on the alienation of all his assets.
The proceedings originally came before a two-member NCLT bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj and Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri. The two members delivered differing opinions. Bhardwaj supported approval of the repayment plan only in relation to creditors who had supported it. He proposed that dissenting creditors, including banks and financial institutions, should be allowed to pursue independent remedies for recovery of their dues.
Technical Member Reena Sinha Puri, however, rejected the plan after finding serious defects in the process followed by the resolution professional. The matter was subsequently referred to Judicial Member Nilesh Sharma as the third member under Section 419(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
On August 25, Sharma expressed the view that the repayment plan should be approved. However, he directed the exclusion of claims submitted through Anil Kumar on behalf of 960 individuals and through Sunil Jain on behalf of 300 individuals. He also directed that the amount allocated to these claims be redistributed among the remaining eligible creditors.
Sharma further held that the approved plan would be binding on all creditors, including those who had opposed it, under Section 115 of the IBC.
When the matter returned to the original two-member bench, it held on August 31 that no clear majority view had emerged from the third member’s opinion. The bench noted that the Technical Member had rejected the plan, the Judicial Member had sought to restrict it to supporting creditors, while the third member had approved it and held that it would bind all creditors.
With all three opinions differing, the matter was referred again to the NCLT President, who constituted a five-member bench to hear the dispute. The larger bench restrained Chandra from alienating any assets and also stayed the order supporting his proposal to pay ₹6.25 crore against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore.
Chandra has now challenged that order before the NCLAT, with the appellate tribunal scheduled to hear the matter on September 29.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
